Could the line to Keswick ever reopen?

[Hardcastle]

There is a old Cumberland cc signpost in Keswick showing directions to the station. It was mooted that the Newcastle-Carlisle service be extended to Keswick should it reopen.

 

[spongsdad]

For those who may be interested, the 1938 LMS timetable for the Penrith-Keswick-Workington line is available via this link
http://www.ribblevalleyrail.co.uk/Cumbria.htm#Keswick.
Dates of closure of the line are also given.
Grateful thanks to organisations such as this, who provide much valuable information on the history of our railways as well as offering practical community support for such lines as the "Ribble Valley" line from Blackburn to Clitheroe.

 

[IanD]

The route is very straight, causing few problems for modern stock and is currently in tact between Keswick and Penrith - all the way to the original Station. I believe a large bridge needs to be constructed over the A66

I believe the local authority short-sightedly allowed a planning application that breached the alignment at the Flusco site close to Newbiggin, not far from Penrith. Although only a small breach, finding an alternative route wouldn't be that easy. It would have been a lot easier for the developer to amend their plan to avoid the alignment but the LA decided against requesting this.

 

[snowball]

The current platform 3 is the Down Loop, that starts roughly where the Keswick Line used to branch off the WCML at a triangle junction at Redhills.

Looking at old-maps.co.uk, it would appear that the SW side of the triangle went long before the NW side - and that when they both existed they crossed each other by a skew bridge!

 

[edwin_m]

I seem to recall the SW side was mainly to carry iron ore which was at one time mined somewhere near Workington and taken to Teesside. It became redundant when the ore was either worked out or replaced by cheaper/better imports, and was lifted in the 1930s.

Edited to remove incorrect statement on two-track bridges.

 

[Buttsy]

I believe the local authority short-sightedly allowed a planning application that breached the alignment at the Flusco site close to Newbiggin, not far from Penrith. Although only a small breach, finding an alternative route wouldn't be that easy. It would have been a lot easier for the developer to amend their plan to avoid the alignment but the LA decided against requesting this.

I think it would be possible (though not sure of the gradient) to follow the A66 rather than go round the 'quarry bulge'. Basically going through the caravan site and skirting Flusco Pike.

 

[DarloRich]

Could it re open? - Yes.

Should it reopen? - Perhaps, IF there was a decent business case and enougth potential traffic year round

Will it repoen - no.

 

[lancastrian]

Could it re open? - Yes.

Should it reopen? - Perhaps, IF there was a decent business case and enougth potential traffic year round

Will it reopen - no.

I fear that you are quite right with your answers. I travelled this line in 1971 about a year before it closed. It was a decent trip, with the two car DMU about a third full. But it was about April Time. The line did serve the community and the station at Keswick was well located for passengers to access the town centre.

The three platform station at Keswick had been reduced to s single platform, so no footbridge needed. Although there has been much talk about this line reopening, sadly as much as I would wish to see it reopen, there are more important and more needed lines to be reopened before this one.

 

[cyclebytrain]

The big issues with reopening the line are the first tunnel out of Keswick, which is currently inaccessible and would need work to prove it as safe, the new tunnel required under the A66 at Threlkeld, the new bridge at Penruddock over the A66 and diversion around the Flusco recycling centre (best done with a new tunnel cutting out the detour round Newbiggin). Also, the timetable would need some care so as to avoid freight trains on the down loop at Penrith (the loop runs over the M6, so that bridge is fine). As I understand it that loop is frequently used to get long (late) freights out of the way as none of the loops over Shap are long enough. The other problems are all smaller, except for funding it!

Commercially it would without a doubt destroy the X4/X5 between Penrith and Keswick -bus fares are > £5 and are cash only, day ticket only with very lax timekeeping. Current bus journey time is about the same as the 1938 timetable posted in this thread. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that a train would be successful against the X4/X5 buses.

 

[snowball]

(the loop runs over the M6, so that bridge is fine).

There appears to be space for a fourth track from Penrith station to the north end of the Eamont viaduct, including the bridges over the M6 and A66!

 

[edwin_m]

There appears to be space for a fourth track from Penrith station to the north end of the Eamont viaduct, including the bridges over the M6 and A66!

Yes you're both right, the bridges do carry three tracks. Not sure how I missed that one. The loop appears to start about where the old south to west curve junction was.

 

[LDECRexile]

Railway Magazine received today (RM Aug 2014 p54) reports that Copeland MP Jamie Reed "asked what recent representations had been received on the reopening of the Keswick to Penrith railway line."

Transport Minister Stephen Hammond said that "the DfT had received four letters in the last two years...and was aware of a campaign led by a group called CKP Railways..."

...he continued..."It would be for Cumbria County Council and the Local Enterprise Partnership to determine whether the repoening...is a priority and secure funding from locally allocated funds.."

...he concluded... "We have received no indication that this scheme is a priority for the council."

 

[DJH1971]

It will never re-open.

Much of the old line is now a public walkway.

I should know as I reguarly go on holiday in Keswick each year, up at Low Briery where the line went.

 

[yorksrob]

We need to accept that these routes were built to be major transport corridors and that whilst it's good that track beds can sometimes be used as paths etc, this should only be seen as a caretaker function in case the line needs to be used for the purpose it was built for.

 

[Dawg]

We need to accept that these routes were built to be major transport corridors and that whilst it's good that track beds can sometimes be used as paths etc, this should only be seen as a caretaker function in case the line needs to be used for the purpose it was built for.

Exactly my feelings about old railways, as I was saying on the other thread about the Bolton - Bury line before I had my head bitten off. By all means convert these lines to walkways, even cycle paths - they don't have to be kept in immaculate condition but please stop any building encroachment. It then becomes irreversible...

 

[edwin_m]

I think the problem with preserving railway corridors is that the powers that be at the time had convinced themselves that the railway was no longer required. It doesn't do their credibility much good if they then add "but perhaps we should protect it in case it's required in the future". That may be good long term thinking but it's not good politics.

 

[MarkyT]

I think the problem with preserving railway corridors is that the powers that be at the time had convinced themselves that the railway was no longer required. It doesn't do their credibility much good if they then add "but perhaps we should protect it in case it's required in the future". That may be good long term thinking but it's not good politics.

I understand that local authorities until relatively recently had no specific powers to protect former rail alignments for reuse as a railway unless there were detailed proposals already in place and funded for their reopening (clearly not very common from 1960s onwards). On appeal, developments rejected solely for breaching rail routes would then be allowed and councils would risk having to meet appeal and delay costs. By contrast new road corridor protection could be applied regardless of the status of the project presumably because from a motor age perspective once a road project had been conceived it was only a matter of time before it inevitably would be built. So central government at the time could be said to have stacked the odds deliberately in order to prevent any closed route's economic reinstatement. It is no surprise that station and yard plots in town and village centres succumbed first to development, often as small estates of higher value private housing. These subsequently would be both very expensive and difficult politically to remove, and thus would effectively block the only practical rail alignment through a settled area. So even if 90% of a route remained clear elsewhere in the countryside, these small incursions at the most critical points could effectively block any economic reinstatement, possibly for ever.

 

[Busaholic]

I understand that local authorities until relatively recently had no specific powers to protect former rail alignments for reuse as a railway unless there were detailed proposals already in place and funded for their reopening (clearly not very common from 1960s onwards). On appeal, developments rejected solely for breaching rail routes would then be allowed and councils would risk having to meet appeal and delay costs. By contrast new road corridor protection could be applied regardless of the status of the project presumably because from a motor age perspective once a road project had been conceived it was only a matter of time before it inevitably would be built. So central government at the time could be said to have stacked the odds deliberately in order to prevent any closed route's economic reinstatement. It is no surprise that station and yard plots in town and village centres succumbed first to development, often as small estates of higher value private housing. These subsequently would be both very expensive and difficult politically to remove, and thus would effectively block the only practical rail alignment through a settled area. So even if 90% of a route remained clear elsewhere in the countryside, these small incursions at the most critical points could effectively block any economic reinstatement, possibly for ever.

Indeed, and in your own area the possibility of the Teign Valley Line being reopened as an alternative to Dawlish were effectively scuppered when Exeter City Council allowed J. Sainsbury to develop a new supermarket in such a way that the railway alignment was breached forever (there were, of course, other reasons why this was a no-go).

 

[Hardcastle]

The late evening X5 bus service between Penrith & Keswick will be withdrawn in September due to Cumbria county council subsidy cuts.

 

[first_ade]

the south Lakes does have rail connection option and it has alway sstruck me as a shame that this isnt the same for the north?

Surely in sustainability terms if you could connect from the WCML and either save the money from the CCC funded Penrith bus or spend it on improving the bus servcies from Keswick to the local hills, then that would be a better use of funds and provide an alternative to the 1000s of cars on the A66?

would it have to be heavy rail? light rail/tram/narrow gauge - could that work?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

the south Lakes does have rail connection option and it has alway sstruck me as a shame that this isnt the same for the north?

Surely in sustainability terms if you could connect from the WCML and either save the money from the CCC funded Penrith bus or spend it on improving the bus servcies from Keswick to the local hills, then that would be a better use of funds and provide an alternative to the 1000s of cars on the A66?

That does assume that the railway wouldn't require any subsidy. Besides, killing the bus might not be desirable - I imagine (without any local knowledge) the bus would serve villages that a railway couldn't serve.

But in general your point is a good one. One thing that strikes me every time I go to the Lake District is the extent to which the environment in very beautiful towns and villages is basically being ruined by the numbers of cars. Obviously, you want the tourists to be able to get there, but if you could get more of them there on the train, and then using buses to travel within the Lake District, the region would become much more pleasant to visit.

 

[first_ade]

That does assume that the railway wouldn't require any subsidy. Besides, killing the bus might not be desirable - I imagine (without any local knowledge) the bus would serve villages that a railway couldn't serve.

But in general your point is a good one. One thing that strikes me every time I go to the Lake District is the extent to which the environment in very beautiful towns and villages is basically being ruined by the numbers of cars. Obviously, you want the tourists to be able to get there, but if you could get more of them there on the train, and then using buses to travel within the Lake District, the region would become much more pleasant to visit.

I have travelled on the bus and as it wends its way out of Penrith it then basically follows the A66 into Keswick? the railway could stop at similar places as the oringinal line eg Threlkeld (a good base for climbing Saddleback )

in purbeck the local authority has supported the Swanage Railway and its park and ride at Norden becasue it recognises the impact on locals and tourists alike of the awful congestion caused by limited options for getting there.
It appears that neither the local/district/county or regional authorities support the reinstatement of the Penrith Keswick line, which seems ridiculously short sighted to me.

 

[kylemore]

the south Lakes does have rail connection option and it has alway sstruck me as a shame that this isnt the same for the north?

Surely in sustainability terms if you could connect from the WCML and either save the money from the CCC funded Penrith bus or spend it on improving the bus servcies from Keswick to the local hills, then that would be a better use of funds and provide an alternative to the 1000s of cars on the A66?

would it have to be heavy rail? light rail/tram/narrow gauge - could that work?

Yes why couldn't it be metre gauge on the Swiss model?

I've been told before that there wouldn't be much difference in costs - but if that is the case why do metre gauge lines exist?

Operated to tramway rules surely there would be much less need for segregation and it would be easier to get it round any built on sections?

 

[deltic08]

It is no coincidence that the Keswick line closed only two years before the biggest upgrade in the history of the WCML with through trains from London stopping at Penrith every two hours. Why was closure rushed through? Because the BRB didn't want to risk growth that WCML electrification would inevitably bring therefore making it harder to close.

Workington-Keswick was a loss-maker in the Winter but made enough in the Summer to give an overall profit. Beeching looked at station booking office takings on a Tuesday in February half term. Much of the fares revenue was taken off the line for travel to the corridor. With closure this revenue was lost to BR in general as there was modal shift.

This line would be very successful if reinstated as part of the National system but we live in an age where politicians are blinkered and short sighted about reinstated railways in the North of England.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes why couldn't it be metre gauge on the Swiss model? I've been told before that there wouldn't be much difference in costs - but if that is the case why do metre gauge lines exist? Operated to tramway rules surely there would be much less need for segregation and it would be easier to get it round any built on sections?

Metre or similar smaller gauges were used in mountainous territory to cut costs, especially for colonial railways. These railways and their alpine counterparts are usually more steeply graded and more sharply curved, hence they can fit into tighter spaces like narrow valleys with less expensive earthworks and structures. The spirals on the RhB Albula pass for instance have curves with radius as low as 100 metres, compared to the Gotthard where curves are typically 300 metre radius.

Seeing as Keswick was built for traditional heavy rail standard gauge, there would be little saving reinstating as narrow gauge, and any through running opportunities would be lost, although I don't think there's much chance of that as Penrith is such a long way from any other major places on the main line. A 'light rail' standard gauge solution however could allow less segregation, useful for integrating the reopened line with footpaths and trails in the area without having to construct new footbridges, and perhaps allowing small extensions or deviations on or alongside roads.

 

[Helvellyn]

It is no coincidence that the Keswick line closed only two years before the biggest upgrade in the history of the WCML with through trains from London stopping at Penrith every two hours. Why was closure rushed through? Because the BRB didn't want to risk growth that WCML electrification would inevitably bring therefore making it harder to close.

Of course once shut it becomes a lot harder to reopen. If this line had survived I think it would be pretty successful today.

I remember in the 1980s the Lakeland Pullman* arriving at Penrith and disgorging its passengers onto a fleet of coaches in the station forecourt, usually for a trip to Keswick!

(* 10 coach rake formed of Mk 2 air-conditioned former Manchester Pullman stock, sometimes strengthened with a couple of Mk 2D FOs)

 

[JohnB57]

One thing that strikes me every time I go to the Lake District is the extent to which the environment in very beautiful towns and villages is basically being ruined by the numbers of cars. Obviously, you want the tourists to be able to get there, but if you could get more of them there on the train, and then using buses to travel within the Lake District, the region would become much more pleasant to visit.

It was the car that transformed the Lake District into a viable tourist destination and mass car ownership is largely responsible for the region's income and wealth. It's also responsible for crowding, but not just because of visitors - virtually every residence now has at least one vehicle, most have multiple and these have to be parked on streets not designed to take them.

Public transport will never be a transport solution for the Lakes, even supposing opportunities for meaningful improvements existed. If the region were to make car based tourism difficult, it would be a turkey voting for Christmas.

 

[Iskra]

It was the car that transformed the Lake District into a viable tourist destination and mass car ownership is largely responsible for the region's income and wealth. It's also responsible for crowding, but not just because of visitors - virtually every residence now has at least one vehicle, most have multiple and these have to be parked on streets not designed to take them.

Public transport will never be a transport solution for the Lakes, even supposing opportunities for meaningful improvements existed. If the region were to make car based tourism difficult, it would be a turkey voting for Christmas.

Is this a joke? This is the most ill-informed post I've ever seen.

It was the railways in Victorian times that started the tourist industry in the lakes and made it a desirable place to live. Much like the seaside resorts and the Scottish Glens/Highlands.

And also, as someone who used to live there- I assure you that public transport will be the future of the Lake District due to the lack of parking, severe congestion on the A590/A591 (at times heading on to the M6) and cyclists joyriding two abreast on main roads making it impossible to get anywhere.

The place is also becoming more and more unaffordable, so people will increasingly travel there and back in a day rather than stay over or live there.

 

[HSTEd]

This is where I propose a Lake District Shinkansen with an underground station in Keswick and multiple trains per hour to all sorts of places.

 

[JohnB57]

Is this a joke? This is the most ill-informed post I've ever seen.

It was the railways in Victorian times that started the tourist industry in the lakes and made it a desirable place to live. Much like the seaside resorts and the Scottish Glens/Highlands.

And also, as someone who used to live there- I assure you that public transport will be the future of the Lake District due to the lack of parking, severe congestion on the A590 (at times heading on to the M6) and cyclists joyriding two abreast on main roads making it impossible to get anywhere.

The place is also becoming more and more unaffordable, so people will increasingly travel there and back in a day rather than stay over or live there.

You may have seen my post, but you clearly haven't read it or understood it - your response makes no sense at all and I regret you're wrong - or at least a hundred years out of date.

The region cannot survive or prosper without the car, any more than Cornwall, Blackpool or the Scottish Highlands can. This is 2014, not the Victorian era - there's no longer a line of charabancs waiting at Windermere to convey you on to Keswick and Catbells. But every car that arrives, whether on a day trip or for a longer period, brings opportunities for local trade - trade that would simply go somewhere car friendly instead if the only option was public transport.

I realise this is a rail forum with its own inherent biases, but you have to admit that even well integrated public transport can only do so much. In the Lake District, that would be far too little for the region to be viable as a tourist destination.