Future of the Settle to Carlisle, Bentham and Ribble Valley lines

[InkyScrolls]

If it doesn't make money then the question is what are we subsidising? If its middle class hikers with railcards then that isnt a great use of taxpayers money.
Living in the countryside is unviable without a car, and is clearly viable without trains as most of the countryside does without.
If you binned the Bentham line then it would improve the viability of running a decent bus service, particularly if some of the saving was spent on road improvements to speed them up. If it also frees up paths on the WCML for long distance passengers or freight then its a decision that must be taken.
A particular gripe of mine is country folk (often drawbridge raising incomers) blocking development yet still demanding unviable public transport.
If rural lines/stations are kept open then it should be at the price of development to make them more viable - Hellifield seems a good location to build a town with good transport links for example.

How feasible is it to add tourist units to the trains? I am thinking on the lines of converting class 175s* into tourist dining units and adding them onto the front/back of the normal service trains. They would be end to end trips so intermediate platforms wouldnt matter (with new stopping point signs). What would matter would be signals/pointwork at the end of the platforms (and how long are the bays at Carlisle?).
I'm thinking airline style food - they knock out reasonable meals for the better classes without kitchens don't they? Must be a pub/restaurant/hotels in Skipton/Settle/Carlisle that could load a couple of trolleys worth of meals??
The concept would be like a small scale charter but attached to normal services. Separate ticketing, all reserved (up to departure). Fares varying by time and product - posher runs at meal times, cheaper at non-meal times with snacks and hot drinks/booze.

*picked 175's as they are available soon, rather than any knowledge of availability, compatibility etc etc.

We all know that wouldn't happen though.

Also you seem to forget that the population of the countryside is disproportionately elderly, who rely on public transport far more.

Which brings us back to the question: "Should the railways be expected to torn a profit, or instead be treated as a public service?"

 

[muddythefish]

If it doesn't make money then the question is what are we subsidising? If its middle class hikers with railcards then that isnt a great use of taxpayers money.
Living in the countryside is unviable without a car, and is clearly viable without trains as most of the countryside does without.
If you binned the Bentham line then it would improve the viability of running a decent bus service, particularly if some of the saving was spent on road improvements to speed them up. If it also frees up paths on the WCML for long distance passengers or freight then its a decision that must be taken.
A particular gripe of mine is country folk (often drawbridge raising incomers) blocking development yet still demanding unviable public transport.
If rural lines/stations are kept open then it should be at the price of development to make them more viable - Hellifield seems a good location to build a town with good transport links for example.

"Taxpayers' money" doesn't exist. It's government money, to spend (or not) how it wishes

One of the lessons of Beeching is that replacing trains with buses only leads in the long term to the eventual demise of the bus service and no public transport services at all.

I look occasionally on pro-motoring websites and you never see people advocating more spending on rail at the expense of roads so I don't really understand on a supposedly pro-rail site why anyone would advocate this

Agree about Hellifield though. I've often thought that with rail links to Leeds and Lancaster and potentially Manchester it would be a good location for housing expansion in the Dales.

 

[Meerkat]

We all know that wouldn't happen though.

Also you seem to forget that the population of the countryside is disproportionately elderly, who rely on public transport far more.

Which brings us back to the question: "Should the railways be expected to torn a profit, or instead be treated as a public service?"

No reason why it wouldn't if they need to convince the local authorities to back the plan.
The elderly aren't time (or often even day) sensitive - they can use buses (which they can use for free). How do they cope in the majority of the countryside that doesn't have a station, and how do they get to the station if there is one?

Your last line is a distraction. Even if the railways are treated as a public service they aren't necessarily the best way of providing that public service, and they still need to justify the use of scarce public funds.

Railways are for metros and long distance passengers and freight. Using them for rural transport is just an expensive historical hangover.

 

[InkyScrolls]

No reason why it wouldn't if they need to convince the local authorities to back the plan.
The elderly aren't time (or often even day) sensitive - they can use buses (which they can use for free). How do they cope in the majority of the countryside that doesn't have a station, and how do they get to the station if there is one?

Your last line is a distraction. Even if the railways are treated as a public service they aren't necessarily the best way of providing that public service, and they still need to justify the use of scarce public funds.

Railways are for metros and long distance passengers and freight. Using them for rural transport is just an expensive historical hangover.

So suddenly you're in favour of zero profit if it doesn't involve railways?

 

[D6130]

OK, daft idea: Could trains from/to Leeds and Barrow be joined/split at Carnforth to save a path to/from Lancaster?

Unfortunately not. 158s (from Leeds) have BSI couplers, whereas 195s from Barrow have Dellners....therefore they're incompatible.

Is attaching permitted in the Up platform at Carnforth? I'd be surprised if the couplers could be reliably aligned on that curve.

They probably wouldn't....even if they were compatible.

(and how long are the bays at Carlisle?).

5 & 6 will take 6 x 23m vehicles. 2 is shorter.

Will those freights when Whalley is repaired run to Manchester via Blackburn and Bolton? It's the most direct route

Probably not....as they would end up facing the wrong way to enter the stone terminals at Bredbury and Pendleton. In the case of the latter, Salford Crescent is far too busy to have freight trains running round during the passenger service hours.

 

[Ken H]

No reason why it wouldn't if they need to convince the local authorities to back the plan.
The elderly aren't time (or often even day) sensitive - they can use buses (which they can use for free). How do they cope in the majority of the countryside that doesn't have a station, and how do they get to the station if there is one?

Your last line is a distraction. Even if the railways are treated as a public service they aren't necessarily the best way of providing that public service, and they still need to justify the use of scarce public funds.

Railways are for metros and long distance passengers and freight. Using them for rural transport is just an expensive historical hangover.

Back in the day the Skipton - Lancaster buses used to do Skipton - Settle - Ingleton - Bentham - Hornby - Lancaster. Bit of a wiggle to serve Ingleton and Bentham, and serve Burton in Lonsdale.

Now the bus does Skipton - Settle - Ingleton - Kirkby Lonsdale then 2 variants to get to Lancaster. Its a longer way round and misses out Bentham. and the 2 variants go round the houses between KL and Lancaster.
So as a through service its way way too slow
So some get the train. but most drive. 1hr 52m for 26 miles isnt a viable product.

 

[70014IronDuke]

That is impressive - and shows just how much padding there is!

Perhaps it was more down to determined driving? The following 1M53 left Leeds 19 down, and arrived Carlisle 24 down. (Of course, this less than stellar performance may not have been anything to do with the driver.)

But the return working of 2H12 - presumably with the same crew - left Carlisle 24 down (after a five minute turnround) and made up 15 mins by Leeds, arriving just 9 late. Another excellent effort.

 

[RT4038]

"Taxpayers' money" doesn't exist. It's government money, to spend (or not) how it wishes
lessons of Beeching is that replacing trains with buses only leads in the long term to the eventual demise of the bus service and no public transport services at all.

I think that is a lesson in the figment of rail enthusiasts imagination.

Many of the rail lines closed in that era were not carrying sufficient passengers for even a replacement bus service to pay its way. The railway was being hugely subsidised and the bus service expected to pay its way - that is what leads in the long term to the eventual demise of the bus service and no public transport services at all.

 

[Meerkat]

So suddenly you're in favour of zero profit if it doesn't involve railways?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point??

Back in the day the Skipton - Lancaster buses used to do Skipton - Settle - Ingleton - Bentham - Hornby - Lancaster. Bit of a wiggle to serve Ingleton and Bentham, and serve Burton in Lonsdale.

Now the bus does Skipton - Settle - Ingleton - Kirkby Lonsdale then 2 variants to get to Lancaster. Its a longer way round and misses out Bentham. and the 2 variants go round the houses between KL and Lancaster.
So as a through service its way way too slow
So some get the train. but most drive. 1hr 52m for 26 miles isnt a viable product.

Too slow for whom - who is doing the through route and doesn't have a car? Its quite likely there isn't a better through bus service because of the trains, so stop them and the bus service might improve.
Spending a lot of public money to save some time for a handful of people is unlikely to be the best use of those funds.

 

[D6130]

If rural lines/stations are kept open then it should be at the price of development to make them more viable - Hellifield seems a good location to build a town with good transport links for example.

Agree about Hellifield though. I've often thought that with rail links to Leeds and Lancaster and potentially Manchester it would be a good location for housing expansion in the Dales.

Hellifield attracted a large new housing development in the late 1990s/early 2000s, on the site of the former Lancashire and Yorkshire marshalling yard....but unfortunately - as is often the case these days - the developers declined to pay for the necessary infrastructure enhancements and Craven District Council, who gave the green light to the development, couldn't afford to. As a result, there are frequent power cuts, water and sewage problems to this day. As a result of this shambles, the population of the village increased from 1,017 (1961 Census) to 1,426 (2011 Census), Equally unfortunately, from my experience of driving the route until 2012, it would appear that only a tiny proportion of the additional 400-odd inhabitants regularly used the two morning Up trains and three evening Down trains for commuting to/from Skipton, Keighley, Leeds or Bradford.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Perhaps it was more down to determined driving? The following 1M53 left Leeds 19 down, and arrived Carlisle 24 down. (Of course, this less than stellar performance may not have been anything to do with the driver.)

But the return working of 2H12 - presumably with the same crew - left Carlisle 24 down (after a five minute turnaround) and made up 15 mins by Leeds, arriving just 9 late. Another excellent effort.

That is interesting. Notably 1M53 was following another service as far as Skipton, 2H24, which was running 36 mins late. As for losing further time to Carlisle, I'm not sure - I suspect more relaxed driving.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point?

(Regarding zero profit.) You seem happy to subsidise pensioners, who pay nothing to travel on buses, but not members of the working population who pay to travel by train.

Too slow for whom - who is doing the through route and doesn't have a car? Its quite likely there isn't a better through bus service because of the trains, so stop them and the bus service might improve.
Spending a lot of public money to save some time for a handful of people is unlikely to be the best use of those funds.

Except we know from experience that that doesn't happen, and 'might' is not good enough a basis to remove public transport for a large area of the country (assuming you apply to logic to other lines as well).

 

[Bertie the bus]

(Regarding zero profit.) You seem happy to subsidise pensioners, who pay nothing to travel on buses, but not members of the working population who pay to travel by train.

You can't subsidise everybody. If you did who would pay for the subsidy? It used to be a pretty well established fact that the welfare state and government support was to provide a safety blanket for those most in need. These days, and especially since Covid when the government effectively paid the majority of people to do nothing irrespective of wealth and earnings, more and more people think the government should pay for most things for everybody.

 

[InkyScrolls]

You can't subsidise everybody. If you did who would pay for the subsidy? It used to be a pretty well established fact that the welfare state and government support was to provide a safety blanket for those most in need. These days, and especially since Covid when the government effectively paid the majority of people to do nothing irrespective of wealth and earnings, more and more people think the government should pay for most things for everybody.

If you remove the railway, the competitor will benefit, and for the vast majority of people that will be the car. But then, given your namesake, I shouldn't be surprised you seem to prefer road transport!

 

[Meerkat]

That is interesting. Notably 1M53 was following another service as far as Skipton, 2H24, which was running 36 mins late. As for losing further time to Carlisle, I'm not sure - I suspect more relaxed driving.


(Regarding zero profit.) You seem happy to subsidise pensioners, who pay nothing to travel on buses, but not members of the working population who pay to travel by train.


Except we know from experience that that doesn't happen, and 'might' is not good enough a basis to remove public transport for a large area of the country (assuming you apply to logic to other lines as well).

firstly I am not happy about the blanket subsidy to all pensioners to go where they like by bus for free. But if subsidising buses is cheaper and better for getting the deserving pensioners around then great.
what experience- how many lines have shut?

But this is becoming a general debate, and this is about the Bentham and S&C lines’ futures. my answer is the Bentham line doesn’t have a future if closing saves a worthwhile amount.

 

[daodao]

Railways are for metros and long distance passengers and freight. Using them for rural transport is just an expensive historical hangover.

Exactly.

The coal trains are no more (the primary reason why the S&C line was retained) and there is no longer any significant freight traffic originating north of Ribblehead, apart from that to Newbiggin Gypsum works. The Hellifield to Clitheroe is no longer needed for through freight traffic; it is not needed to access the Clitheroe cement works. The primary passenger flow on these lines is from West Yorkshire to Lancaster/Morecambe, Cumbria and the West of Scotland (by changing at Carlisle).

One therefore needs to look at the most economical way of servicing the remaining key passenger and freight flows. Retention of the Carnforth-Skipton line for passenger trains, with additional express passenger trains from Leeds to Glasgow reversing south of Carnforth, and retention of the southernmost portion of the S&C line for freight from Settle Junction as far as Arcow Quarry/Ribblehead, would suffice. Some extra peak passenger trains could continue to run as far as Settle. A goods yard near Penrith with road haulage on the A66 for the final few miles could service the Newbiggin Gypsum works. The lines from Carlisle to south of Ribblehead viaduct, and from Hellifield to Clitheroe Cement Works could then be closed. No settlement with a population over 3,500 would lose its passenger rail service, or connectivity to other settlements with a population over 3,500.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Exactly.

The coal trains are no more (the primary reason why the S&C line was retained) and there is no longer any significant freight traffic originating north of Ribblehead, apart from that to Newbiggin Gypsum works. The Hellifield to Clitheroe is no longer needed for through freight traffic; it is not needed to access the Clitheroe cement works. The primary passenger flow on these lines is from West Yorkshire to Lancaster/Morecambe, Cumbria and the West of Scotland (by changing at Carlisle).

One therefore needs to look at the most economical way of servicing the remaining key passenger and freight flows. Retention of the Carnforth-Skipton line for passenger trains, with additional express passenger trains from Leeds to Glasgow reversing south of Carnforth, and retention of the southernmost portion of the S&C line for freight from Settle Junction as far as Arcow Quarry/Ribblehead, would suffice. Some extra peak passenger trains could continue to run as far as Settle. A goods yard near Penrith with road haulage on the A66 for the final few miles could service the Newbiggin Gypsum works. The lines from Carlisle to south of Ribblehead viaduct, and from Hellifield to Clitheroe Cement Works could then be closed. No settlement with a population over 3,500 would lose its passenger rail service.

But you do realise the railway makes quite a significant sum from walkers travelling to/from Dent, Garsdale and Kirkby Stephen, which would be lost in your plan.

Why should 3,500 pop. be the cutoff?

 

[D6130]

The coal trains are no more (the primary reason why the S&C line was retained) and there is no longer any significant freight traffic originating north of Ribblehead, apart from that to Newbiggin Gypsum works. The Hellifield to Clitheroe is no longer needed for through freight traffic; it is not needed to access the Clitheroe cement works.

I beg to differ....the coal trains may have disappeared, but the line is still used for certain heavy freight services which would cause chaos to the timetable if they were to be diverted onto the WCML, e.g. the Clitheroe-Mossend cement (when it's not lying in the River Pettril), the Wembley-Irvine china clay tanks and the Carlisle-Chirk timber trains, to name but three. Additionally, there is the Carlisle New Yard-Crewe Basford Hall Network Rail infrastructure train, which frequently runs as an out-of-gauge load (6X05 instead of 6K05) conveying heavy on-track renewals plant, meaning that it mustn't pass another train on certain sections of line and is subject to severe speed restrictions under certain bridges and through certain platforms....which again would be almost impossible to path on the WCML. It's all very well saying that the gypsum trains containers could be offloaded onto road transport somewhere near Penrith and trucked to Kirkby Thore, but each gypsum train carries up to 50 containers and - again - would make very slow progress up the grades from Milnthorpe to Shap Summit....not to mention the number of lorries which would be needed to carry those containers back and forth. We have a climate emergency which is destroying the planet....the last thing we need is more freight on the roads and less on rail!

 

[Bertie the bus]

Diverting the freight wouldn't cause chaos on the WCML at all. It would have no effect on anything and has regularly happened. The logs regularly went via the WCML for a considerable amount of time; the Clitheroe - Mossend doesn't run any more I don't think and again was routed via the WCML for a considerable length of time a few years ago when there was that lindslide on the S&C and caused no issues. 6K05 was also routed via the WCML for several months with Class 88 haulage as a green washing spectacle when COP26 was on. There are loads of loops between Carlisle and Preston and even when freights are regularly looped on the WCML they still just take the same amount of time or slightly less than when they are routed via the S&C.

 

[The Planner]

Exactly.

The coal trains are no more (the primary reason why the S&C line was retained) and there is no longer any significant freight traffic originating north of Ribblehead, apart from that to Newbiggin Gypsum works. The Hellifield to Clitheroe is no longer needed for through freight traffic; it is not needed to access the Clitheroe cement works. The primary passenger flow on these lines is from West Yorkshire to Lancaster/Morecambe, Cumbria and the West of Scotland (by changing at Carlisle).

One therefore needs to look at the most economical way of servicing the remaining key passenger and freight flows. Retention of the Carnforth-Skipton line for passenger trains, with additional express passenger trains from Leeds to Glasgow reversing south of Carnforth, and retention of the southernmost portion of the S&C line for freight from Settle Junction as far as Arcow Quarry/Ribblehead, would suffice. Some extra peak passenger trains could continue to run as far as Settle. A goods yard near Penrith with road haulage on the A66 for the final few miles could service the Newbiggin Gypsum works. The lines from Carlisle to south of Ribblehead viaduct, and from Hellifield to Clitheroe Cement Works could then be closed. No settlement with a population over 3,500 would lose its passenger rail service.

You keep banging on about this, the S&C is not going to close.

 

[InkyScrolls]

You keep banging on about this, the S&C is not going to close.

No matter how much the disciples of Serpell want it to!

The S&C seems to have become something of a magnet for the pro-car contingent.

 

[D6130]

The S&C seems to have become something of a magnet for the pro-car contingent.

....not to mention the pro-bus contingent!

 

[Bertie the bus]

....not to mention the pro-bus contingent!

If that is aimed at me I haven't said the S&C should be closed, just that what you said about the freight was completely untrue. Which it was.

 

[D6130]

If that is aimed at me I haven't said the S&C should be closed, just that what you said about the freight was completely untrue. Which it was.

Sorry....nothing personal! I forgot to put the 'smiley/wink' emoticon at the end of my last post. Others have also stated a preference for replacement bus services - admittedly for the Bentham line, rather than the S & C - further upthread. I think we both agree that it would be impossible to replace the whole of the S & C with a bus service, given the lack of North-South roads and the remoteness of some of the stations. My jury is still out on the freight trains, although perhaps things have changed since I was last involved in train planning in the 1980s. I do believe though that it is still policy to keep heavy diesel-hauled freight trains off the Preston-Carlisle section of the WCML as far as possible during daylight hours....although the inter-modals - which should be electrically-hauled by rights - seem to be the exception. Presumably there are loading gauge issues with some or all of the containers?

 

[The Planner]

Presumably there are loading gauge issues with some or all of the containers?

Just a bit...

 

[Iskra]

But this is becoming a general debate, and this is about the Bentham and S&C lines’ futures. my answer is the Bentham line doesn’t have a future if closing saves a worthwhile amount.

The Bentham line must be one of the cheapest bits of railway in the country to run- it’s simple, flat, lightly used, has no point work that is used regularly and has no intermediate signal boxes, crossings and barely any other major pieces of infrastructure to maintain. I strongly suggest that it adds much more than it costs, if you think beyond mere financial benefit.

 

[chorleyjeff]

I beg to differ....the coal trains may have disappeared, but the line is still used for certain heavy freight services which would cause chaos to the timetable if they were to be diverted onto the WCML, e.g. the Clitheroe-Mossend cement (when it's not lying in the River Pettril), the Wembley-Irvine china clay tanks and the Carlisle-Chirk timber trains, to name but three. Additionally, there is the Carlisle New Yard-Crewe Basford Hall Network Rail infrastructure train, which frequently runs as an out-of-gauge load (6X05 instead of 6K05) conveying heavy on-track renewals plant, meaning that it mustn't pass another train on certain sections of line and is subject to severe speed restrictions under certain bridges and through certain platforms....which again would be almost impossible to path on the WCML. It's all very well saying that the gypsum trains containers could be offloaded onto road transport somewhere near Penrith and trucked to Kirkby Thore, but each gypsum train carries up to 50 containers and - again - would make very slow progress up the grades from Milnthorpe to Shap Summit....not to mention the number of lorries which would be needed to carry those containers back and forth. We have a climate emergency which is destroying the planet....the last thing we need is more freight on the roads and less on rail!

I beg to differ also. Please check how many non passenger trains run from Carlisle to Settle. None today and very few on weekdays which could well be handled with a low speed minimal signalling line or extended sidings from each end. The few passenger trains to Carlisle could go via Carnforth as mentioned earlier. I don't reckon lines should be kept open and subsidised for people to have occasional nostalgia jollies and also not for hikers to wander the hills during our quite short summer. Better to spend the money where it is raised ie where there are many people and businesses likely to use the railway.

 

[Iskra]

I beg to differ also. Please check how many non passenger trains run from Carlisle to Settle. None today and very few on weekdays which could well be handled with a low speed minimal signalling line or extended sidings from each end. The few passenger trains to Carlisle could go via Carnforth as mentioned earlier. I don't reckon lines should be kept open and subsidised for people to have occasional nostalgia jollies and also not for hikers to wander the hills during our quite short summer. Better to spend the money where it is raised ie where there are many people and businesses likely to use the railway.

If it didn’t close in the 1980’s, it’s not going to close now or anytime soon.

 

[zwk500]

The Bentham line must be one of the cheapest bits of railway in the country to run- it’s simple, flat, lightly used, has no point work that is used regularly and has no intermediate signal boxes, crossings and barely any other major pieces of infrastructure to maintain. I strongly suggest that it adds much more than it costs, if you think beyond mere financial benefit.

Melling Tunnel and Melling and Arkholme Viaducts aren't immaterial, nor is the fact that it runs through less than easily accessible countryside. It also effectively adds 2 junctions to the network, and arguably keeps Carnforth Station signal box in business (Settle Jn wouldn't close as the block post is needed but Carnforth Station junction could have been closed and Preston PSB given control.
It's used for a handful of steam tours and 1 passenger train per 2 hours. I'm not convinced it does add more than it costs, even if you try and put a number on some of the non-financials.

If it didn’t close in the 1980’s, it’s not going to close now or anytime soon.

Correct. Niether of these lines are going anywhere, politically it's impossible and practically it would achieve very little or nothing to do so.

 

[tbtc]

Which brings us back to the question: "Should the railways be expected to torn a profit, or instead be treated as a public service?"

I don’t expect the railway to turn a profit but I do argue with some of the basket case stations/ lines that people want to prop up indefinitely

You can be pro rail and in favour of subsidies but still accept that stations like Wennington (with fewer than one departing passengers per train that stops there) don’t deserve long term support if passenger numbers stay so low

One of the lessons of Beeching is that replacing trains with buses only leads in the long term to the eventual demise of the bus service and no public transport services at all

Plenty of lines closed but have some bus service today (e.g. Of the Scottish reopenings, places like Leven and Galashiels retained bus services for decades)

The handful of places that saw their bus service scrapped after their train service was scrapped Sound like places that never justified a train service in the first place (If there aren’t sufficient people wanting to travel to make a bus service viable then the economics of that number of people on a train seem “optimistic”)

I don't really understand on a supposedly pro-rail site why anyone would advocate this

You can be pro rail without having to blindly accept indefinite subsidy of every basket case Station/line - you’re allowed to question some aspects

I think that is a lesson in the figment of rail enthusiasts imagination.

Many of the rail lines closed in that era were not carrying sufficient passengers for even a replacement bus service to pay its way. The railway was being hugely subsidised and the bus service expected to pay its way - that is what leads in the long term to the eventual demise of the bus service and no public transport services at all.

Agreed

We subsidise heavy rail by billions a year but expect National Express to be self funding

If we were sensible about public transport then we’d severely change the balance between Rail and Bus

We have a climate emergency which is destroying the planet....the last thing we need is more freight on the roads and less on rail!

Presumably anyone worried about “climate emergency” Would be concerned about these lightly loaded diesel trains chugging along at a couple of miles to the gallon?

No matter how much the disciples of Serpell want it to!

The S&C seems to have become something of a magnet for the pro-car contingent.

Again, it’s not hearasey to question the worst performing stations/ lines, you can question the economics of various stations with fewer than one departing passenger per train without being accused of being a Jeremy Clarkson fanboy

Again and again, we see the argument that anyone who doesn’t blindly accept the billions of pounds spent propping the railway up each year must be hellbent on closing everything

The Bentham line must be one of the cheapest bits of railway in the country to run- it’s simple, flat, lightly used, has no point work that is used regularly and has no intermediate signal boxes, crossings and barely any other major pieces of infrastructure to maintain. I strongly suggest that it adds much more than it costs, if you think beyond mere financial benefit.

Just a shame there are so few passengers (e.g. fewer than one departing partner per train), so is not so efficient

However, if you want to bring in unquantifiable stuff about non-financial benefits then I guess you’ll magically cobble together enough non-measurable things to give you whatever answer you want

 

[InkyScrolls]

I beg to differ also. Please check how many non passenger trains run from Carlisle to Settle. None today and very few on weekdays which could well be handled with a low speed minimal signalling line or extended sidings from each end. The few passenger trains to Carlisle could go via Carnforth as mentioned earlier. I don't reckon lines should be kept open and subsidised for people to have occasional nostalgia jollies and also not for hikers to wander the hills during our quite short summer. Better to spend the money where it is raised ie where there are many people and businesses likely to use the railway.

I can tell you've not travelled on the frequently full and standing four-car 158s in Spring and Summer.

The Bentham line must be one of the cheapest bits of railway in the country to run- it’s simple, flat, lightly used, has no point work that is used regularly and has no intermediate signal boxes, crossings and barely any other major pieces of infrastructure to maintain. I strongly suggest that it adds much more than it costs, if you think beyond mere financial benefit.

*No pointwork at all.

And just to clarify, the Bentham Line does not average "less than one departing passenger per train". It averages one departing passenger per train per station, with the majority of its traffic coming from through passengers.

I strongly feel that closing the line would be a mistake, but agree that Clapham and Wennington could probably close with minimal hardship (though by no means none!).