Derby Telegraph "Plans to convert Monsal Trail back into railway takes 'significant step forward'"

[pint]

Article about the possible destruction of a much loved cycle/walking trail in the Peak district in Derbyshire, turning it into a railway line.
These trails/cycle routes are a popular feature in the Peak district with people driving, sometimes long distances, to ride them as they provide a traffic free and not too hilly area to cycle across - which you can see for yourself by the busy car parks.

Article here - link to Derby telegraph site
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/plans-convert-monsal-trail-back-9260109

edit: moderator has asked to provide a quote from article

A group wanting to turn a popular Peak District trail back into a railway line has said the project has taken a "significant step forward". If successful, the scheme would see the Monsal Trail converted back into the former Peak and Dales line, providing a direct Derby to Manchester rail link.

 

[A0wen]

Article about the possible destruction of a much loved cycle/walking trail in the Peak district in Derbyshire, turning it into a railway line.
These trails/cycle routes are a popular feature in the Peak district with people driving, sometimes long distances, to ride them as they provide a traffic free and not too hilly area to cycle across - which you can see for yourself by the busy car parks.

Article here:
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/plans-convert-monsal-trail-back-9260109

A local rag giving undue prominence to a bunch of crayonistas - in this case MEMRAP. They are a bunch of amateurs, they don't have buy in from the local authorities or anything like it.

It's a damning indictment of the current standards of local journalism that they don't even do some basic fact checking anymore and unquestioningly publish the "press releases" of crayonistas.

 

[Meerkat]

Article about the possible destruction of a much loved cycle/walking trail in the Peak district in Derbyshire, turning it into a railway line.
These trails/cycle routes are a popular feature in the Peak district with people driving, sometimes long distances, to ride them as they provide a traffic free and not too hilly area to cycle across - which you can see for yourself by the busy car parks.

Article here:
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/plans-convert-monsal-trail-back-9260109

Its not really a significant step forward to hand a few documents to DfT! They will stick it in a big pile and the politicians will get them to take as long as possible, as spinning the campaigners a bit of hope is much better than having to tell them its never going to happen.

 

[The Planner]

As noted, this is shuffling forward an inch, not a signifcant step. Does it say how much all this costs, including everything that needs doing outside the reopening? Im useless with the search function, but im sure this got taken apart last time in a thread on here.

 

[yorksrob]

Article about the possible destruction of a much loved cycle/walking trail in the Peak district in Derbyshire, turning it into a railway line.
These trails/cycle routes are a popular feature in the Peak district with people driving, sometimes long distances, to ride them as they provide a traffic free and not too hilly area to cycle across - which you can see for yourself by the busy car parks.

Article here - link to Derby telegraph site
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/plans-convert-monsal-trail-back-9260109

edit: moderator has asked to provide a quote from article

It would be long overdue.

The line should never have been closed in the first place

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It would be long overdue.

The line should never have been closed in the first place

No. Just no. The population directly served by the route is small and the market for end-to-end traffic is small also. The alternative route (Hope Valley) actually had viable freight traffic which has continued to this day. The only way the line would not have been closed would be if a decision had been taken not close any rail routes at all. Once that Rubicon had been crossed the closure was an absolute no doubter.

Now I would add that if it had somehow survived that I would be delighted to be able to enjoy its scenic delights. Just as I would the southern half of the Waverley route or the Stainmore route. But it takes more than pleasant views to sustain a rail service through deeply rural areas. The real tragedy is the complete failure in this country to provide bus services replacing such routes and ensuring that such services remain integrated with the rail network regardless of who actually owns the operation. But of course the Beeching was a [insert preferred expletive] gang mostly hate buses and won't support such integration.

 

[yorksrob]

No. Just no. The population directly served by the route is small and the market for end-to-end traffic is small also. The alternative route (Hope Valley) actually had viable freight traffic which has continued to this day. The only way the line would not have been closed would be if a decision had been taken not close any rail routes at all. Once that Rubicon had been crossed the closure was an absolute no doubter.

Now I would add that if it had somehow survived that I would be delighted to be able to enjoy its scenic delights. Just as I would the southern half of the Waverley route or the Stainmore route. But it takes more than pleasant views to sustain a rail service through deeply rural areas. The real tragedy is the complete failure in this country to provide bus services replacing such routes and ensuring that such services remain integrated with the rail network regardless of who actually owns the operation. But of course the Beeching was a [insert preferred expletive] gang mostly hate buses and won't support such integration.

This makes no sense, they're already having to rebuild the Hope Valley line to take all the demands on it. This route will bring people to the local area and ensure resilience of the freight service without clogging up the roads.

People can go on about buses until the cows come home, but they need to realise that buses serve a different market and are not a substitution for inter-regional rail.

 

[AlastairFraser]

No. Just no. The population directly served by the route is small and the market for end-to-end traffic is small also. The alternative route (Hope Valley) actually had viable freight traffic which has continued to this day. The only way the line would not have been closed would be if a decision had been taken not close any rail routes at all. Once that Rubicon had been crossed the closure was an absolute no doubter.

Now I would add that if it had somehow survived that I would be delighted to be able to enjoy its scenic delights. Just as I would the southern half of the Waverley route or the Stainmore route. But it takes more than pleasant views to sustain a rail service through deeply rural areas. The real tragedy is the complete failure in this country to provide bus services replacing such routes and ensuring that such services remain integrated with the rail network regardless of who actually owns the operation. But of course the Beeching was a [insert preferred expletive] gang mostly hate buses and won't support such integration.

It would provide a faster public transport link across Derbyshire where the northern boroughs are quite isolated from the rest of the county (and sometimes quite deprived).

It could also provide a much more direct route for the EMR Liverpool to Norwich service and make the heart of the Peak District one ride away for so many more people, while freeing up capacity on the Hope Valley for additional service Manchester to Sheffield and beyond.

Sheffield and Chesterfield wouldn't massively lose out - the new route would only be a change away in Derby or Nottingham.

 

[HSTEd]

It would provide a faster public transport link across Derbyshire where the northern boroughs are quite isolated from the rest of the county (and sometimes quite deprived).

It could also provide a much more direct route for the EMR Liverpool to Norwich service and make the heart of the Peak District one ride away for so many more people, while freeing up capacity on the Hope Valley for additional service Manchester to Sheffield and beyond.

Sheffield and Chesterfield wouldn't massively lose out - the new route would only be a change away in Derby or Nottingham.

But the problem is that it takes trains away from where the people are (Sheffield etc) and sends them through empty moorland.
Severing direct train from beyond Nottingham to Sheffield is not going to go down well at all with the public.

 

[yorksrob]

But the problem is that it takes trains away from where the people are (Sheffield etc) and sends them through empty moorland.
Severing direct train from beyond Nottingham to Sheffield is not going to go down well at all with the public.

You can still have your trains to the big cities.

This takes people to the major tourist areas.

 

[Killingworth]

Passenger services ceased on 6 March 1967. Trains continued until 1968 when the line was closed. For 56 years the tunnels, bridges, cuttings and embankments have been deteriorating. I've walked almost all of it, or as close as possible, from Buxton to Ambergate and can appreciate the enormously expensive tasks ahead for any reopening.

The line from Rowsley to Chee Dale (most of the Monsal Trail) is the part most think needs reconstruction. However the section from Ambergate to Matlock has been maintained as a single track passenger line so would also require major work to make suitable for heavy freight and more passenger services. Peak Rail's section from Matlock to Rowsley is fine for 25 mph heritage trains but it too would need reconstruction for regular commercial traffic. Peak Rail came to a halt at Rowsley because the demolished bridge over the A6 at Rowsley needs to be rebuilt to modern standards, immediately next to the old bridge across the River Derwent. Reusing the old track bed through repurposed Bakewell station would be delicate.

Like others I question the commercial need, both passenger and freight. If it still existed that would be a totally different story. If reopening had occurred 40-50 years ago before it had deteriorated so much and people had got used to managing without it that too might have been different. Now it's a railway enthusiasts incredibly expensive nostalgic dream. Even with a fair wind it would take 25 years to deliver. 20 years from now it will remain that dream, by which time the quarries may be on their way out.

Any money for rail is far better spent on improvements on and around active lines. Examples might be grade separated crossings of the ECML at Doncaster and York. Across the nation there are many more bottlenecks needing resolution that should come higher up the priority list than this.

 

[yorksrob]

Passenger services ceased on 6 March 1967. Trains continued until 1968 when the line was closed. For 56 years the tunnels, bridges, cuttings and embankments have been deteriorating. I've walked almost all of it, or as close as possible, from Buxton to Ambergate and can appreciate the enormously expensive tasks ahead for any reopening.

The line from Rowsley to Chee Dale (most of the Monsal Trail) is the part most think needs reconstruction. However the section from Ambergate to Matlock has been maintained as a single track passenger line so would also require major work to make suitable for heavy freight and more passenger services. Peak Rail's section from Matlock to Rowsley is fine for 25 mph heritage trains but it too would need reconstruction for regular commercial traffic. Peak Rail came to a halt at Rowsley because the demolished bridge over the A6 at Rowsley needs to be rebuilt to modern standards, immediately next to the old bridge across the River Derwent. Reusing the old track bed through repurposed Bakewell station would be delicate.

Like others I question the commercial need, both passenger and freight. If it still existed that would be a totally different story. If reopening had occurred 40-50 years ago before it had deteriorated so much and people had got used to managing without it that too might have been different. Now it's a railway enthusiasts incredibly expensive nostalgic dream. Even with a fair wind it would take 25 years to deliver. 20 years from now it will remain that dream, by which time the quarries may be on their way out.

Any money for rail is far better spent on improvements on and around active lines. Examples might be grade separated crossings of the ECML at Doncaster and York. Across the nation there are many more bottlenecks needing resolution that should come higher up the priority list than this.

I disagree. "Commercial need" ultimately got us Beeching's slashing of secondary routes. This is totally unsuitable for the era of climate change. We need to be looking at secondary routes and strategic need

 

[The Planner]

I disagree. "Commercial need" ultimately got us Beeching's slashing of secondary routes. This is totally unsuitable for the era of climate change. We need to be looking at secondary routes and strategic need

What strategic need? Where has Network Rail ever said it needs reopening as part of a route utilisation study or route study?

 

[yorksrob]

What strategic need? Where has Network Rail ever said it needs reopening as part of a route utilisation study or route study?

Since when have Network Rail been qualified to think of wider strategic network needs ? They're far too busy trying to keep the current network going.

 

[Halifaxlad]

This makes no sense, they're already having to rebuild the Hope Valley line to take all the demands on it. This route will bring people to the local area and ensure resilience of the freight service without clogging up the roads.

It would make more sense to go even further with the Hope Valley and build some significant new sections of line preferably in tunnels and preferably Westwards from Hope!

 

[yorksrob]

It would make more sense to go even further with the Hope Valley and build some significant new sections of line preferably in tunnels and preferably Westwards from Hope!

A lot of expensive engineering work with no new towns served.

 

[The Planner]

Since when have Network Rail been qualified to think of wider strategic network needs ? They're far too busy trying to keep the current network going.

Oh please, who else has that remit? Some people expecting someone else to sign up for over a billion pounds worth of infrastructure becuase they have spoken to the DfT and didnt even get anywhere with a restoring your railway bid?

 

[HSTEd]

I disagree. "Commercial need" ultimately got us Beeching's slashing of secondary routes. This is totally unsuitable for the era of climate change. We need to be looking at secondary routes and strategic need

Does this line really fulfill any strategic need though?
Two viable routes from Derby/Nottingham traffic towards Manchester/Liverpool exist, either via Sheffield or via Stoke.

The only really significant load centre on the closed segment is Bakewell.

Right now it'd probably be better for tourist traffic to put an aerial ropeway from Bakewell to Grindleford railway station (11km for ~20 minutes) than build a line from Buxton to Matlock to serve the tourists.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Does this line really fulfill any strategic need though?
Two viable routes from Derby/Nottingham traffic towards Manchester/Liverpool exist, either via Sheffield or via Stoke.

The only really significant load centre on the closed segment is Bakewell.

Right now it'd probably be better for tourist traffic to put an aerial ropeway from Bakewell to Grindleford railway station (11km for ~20 minutes) than build a line from Buxton to Matlock to serve the tourists.

Quite. According to the 2021 census the population of Bakewell is all of 3,498! Even if the line had remained open for freight traffic that population isn't going to justify building a station and providing a service to it.

 

[HullRailMan]

Quite. According to the 2021 census the population of Bakewell is all of 3,498! Even if the line had remained open for freight traffic that population isn't going to justify building a station and providing a service to it.

Plus, Bakewell has a really good bus service with more frequent links to Derby and Buxton than the train would offer, plus direct routes to Sheffield and Chesterfield. From a public transport perspective, it’s already very well served.

 

[D365]

Right now it'd probably be better for tourist traffic to put an aerial ropeway from Bakewell to Grindleford railway station (11km for ~20 minutes) than build a line from Buxton to Matlock to serve the tourists.

that would make an excellent railhead.

 

[daodao]

Beeching didn't recommend closure of the Midland main line through the Peak District, nor the Woodhead route, but did recommend closure of the Hope Valley line. BR took the opposite view, but the Hope Valley line with its 2 long tunnels is now stressed by the traffic pressures on it and would be difficult to electrify. However, the decisions of 40 or more years ago can't easily be reversed and any case for doing so would not be value for money.

 

[I'm here now]

Beeching didn't recommend closure of the Midland main line through the Peak District, nor the Woodhead route, but did recommend closure of the Hope Valley line. BR took the opposite view, but the Hope Valley line with its 2 long tunnels is now stressed by the traffic pressures on it and would be difficult to electrify. However, the decisions of 40 or more years ago can't easily be reversed and any case for doing so would not be value for money.

Really, the Woodhead route should be prioritised for reopening with electrification, rather than other Manchester to miscellaneous northern regions. 12 car trains could operate there and actually make a difference, instead of a direct Derby route through fields.

 

[JonathanH]

12 car trains could operate there and actually make a difference, instead of a direct Derby route through fields.

Does that level of demand exist for travel between Sheffield and Manchester? If so, why has no one considered running such longer trains between Sheffield and Manchester on the Hope Valley route?

I wonder what length trains the backers of any scheme to run direct trains from Derby through the Peak District to Manchester would be envisaging.

 

[I'm here now]

Does that level of demand exist for travel between Sheffield and Manchester? If so, why has no one considered running such longer trains between Sheffield and Manchester on the Hope Valley route?

I wonder what length trains the backers of any scheme to run direct trains from Derby through the Peak District to Manchester would be envisaging.

Well, some nice EMUs (I.e 387s) that actually are available would do the trick for an electrified line.

 

[Matt P]

Before I get shot down on this, it is a genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

Would the reopening of this route assist with capacity on the Hope Valley route? Are there and significant freight flows that could effectively by-pass the Hope Valley by using this route instead? Additionally could it be a route that takes some inter-modal traffic to Trafford Park off the WCML.

As I said, it's a genuine question and I'd be interested to know people's thoughts.

 

[daodao]

Before I get shot down on this, it is a genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

Would the reopening of this route assist with capacity on the Hope Valley route? Are there and significant freight flows that could effectively by-pass the Hope Valley by using this route instead? Additionally could it be a route that takes some inter-modal traffic to Trafford Park off the WCML.

As I said, it's a genuine question and I'd be interested to know people's thoughts.

Yes to all your questions in theory, but the benefit/cost ratio would be appalling. Therefore, as with many proposed rail developments (e.g. HS2 phase 2 and more trains for XC), it is more cost-effective to stifle rail expansion rather than cater for it.

 

[The Planner]

Before I get shot down on this, it is a genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

Would the reopening of this route assist with capacity on the Hope Valley route? Are there and significant freight flows that could effectively by-pass the Hope Valley by using this route instead? Additionally could it be a route that takes some inter-modal traffic to Trafford Park off the WCML.

As I said, it's a genuine question and I'd be interested to know people's thoughts.

You need to look at what else it does too. Currently the flows of aggregate to the south east can pop out at Dore then hide on the relatively empty Clay Cross to Trent section to get on the slows. This stops that, you now need to get them out at Ambergate and through Derby to Trent on the two track section. As for Intermodal to Trafford Park, you are now trying to thread 600m plus trains through Edgeley, Stockport and Slade Lane. Via the WCML you can naturally hide it on the Independents at Crewe and the Styals. You would also pretty much have to send it all via Ely and Peterborough to get to Leicester as the southern MML is going to struggle.

 

[daodao]

As for Intermodal to Trafford Park, you are now trying to thread 600m plus trains through Edgeley, Stockport and Slade Lane. Via the WCML you can naturally hide it on the Independents at Crewe and the Styals.

One could re-open the Glazebrook to Skelton Junction line to enable freight traffic from Trafford Park to get to Chinley (with a reversal at Glazebrook) now that the South District line from Throstle Nest junction has been converted to Metrolink, but this is merely hypothetical.

 

[A0wen]

Does that level of demand exist for travel between Sheffield and Manchester? If so, why has no one considered running such longer trains between Sheffield and Manchester on the Hope Valley route?

I wonder what length trains the backers of any scheme to run direct trains from Derby through the Peak District to Manchester would be envisaging.

ISTR this was discussed before and they envisaged 'high speed' limited stop longer distance services with shorter distance stoppers plus freight on a 2 track railway. All of which ignores the expertise of those on this board such as @The Planner who have pointed out more times than I care to count that such a mix is impossible to path effectively and where such a mix occurs currently on the national network it's a nightmare and causes capacity issues and bottlenecks.

But the crayonista response seems to be "oh but you can work around that" - with what, I'm not sure - presumably fairy dust and magic mushrooms because facts, common sense and logic don't seem to be enough.