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

[The Planner]

Can someone explain what's wrong with the existing rail provision for the quarries around Buxton? There seem to be plenty of routes out, so it should be possible to manage maintenance schedules so that at least one of Dore, Altrincham, Hyde Central, or Reddish North is available every night during the week.

It's not as if there is that much stone being quarried. It's well under 5m tons per year, which at 5000t per train is around four trains per weekday.

No stone train out of the Peaks is anywhere near that trailing weight, 2400 tonnes is around the max. The maintenance regime doesn't block it so there is no route out.

But if that stone traffic went south via Matlock wouldn't it end up on the same MML (joining it just a bit further south)?

If it joins it at Dore (as now) at least it can travel via the Erewash Valley route and hence avoid Derby. Joining the ex-Midland Railway network at Dore also gives more flexible routing options to the south and eastern parts of England.

Which is exactly what I noted earlier.

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.

 

[ac6000cw]

I have read it, there is no detail apart from we want to reopen it. Lots of "working on" "developing options" "proposing" etc. There is talk of loops and stations with more than two platforms, but no real idea of where. They also talk about Ambergate north curve as well.

I've read it too, and agree. It reads like a crayonista wish-list, with so much on it that I wonder if it was intended to make the project cost so high that no-one would ever give it the go ahead...

 

[Nottingham59]

No stone train out of the Peaks is anywhere near that trailing weight, 2400 tonnes is around the max.

I stand corrected. Though I understand that 4200 - 4800t stone trains regularly run from the Mendips. And isn't the whole point of extending the Dore South chord is to allow longer and therefore heavier stone trains to access the Southbound MML?

The maintenance regime doesn't block it so there is no route out.

Does mean that mean there are no infrastructure reasons stopping stone trains from running at night?

 

[ac6000cw]

Though I understand that 4200 - 4800t stone trains regularly run from the Mendips.

They do (and have done for decades), but the line from there towards London doesn't have any long steep gradients (max is about 1% I think), so they are within the capabilities of a single cl. 59 loco and the maximum coupler strength.

With steeper gradients, you'd either have to reduce the load or possibly fit a few locos with remote control and insert one mid-train ('distributed power') to keep the coupler forces within the train low enough. But then you'd run into train length limitations on some routes...

 

[yorksrob]

Peak Rail?

Peak Rail and all the compensation for rehousing the whole society and its associated groups. I’ve mentioned it a couple of times but it seems that it gets conveniently forgotten, as evidenced here.

Wasn't their founding ethos to reinstate the whole line anyway (bearing in mind they originally started at Buxton anyway).

They would see what they'd always wanted, albeit not in heritage form.

]

And as I noted previously, it works so well north of Preston.

And as I noted previously, the level of traffic would be rather less challenging than the WCML anyway (not that the WCML seems to experience particularly bad pathing issues anyway).

 

[Neptune]

Wasn't their founding ethos to reinstate the whole line anyway (bearing in mind they originally started at Buxton anyway).

They would see what they'd always wanted, albeit not in heritage form.

Oh well that’s alright then. I want a swimming pool in my back garden but someone’s forcibly bought it and built one of their own. I’m so happy for them.

I notice you avoid the question of who is going to pay the compensation and relocation costs not to mention the money lost to the local economy. And before you say they’d be able to catch a train anyway you forget that the vast majority of visitors are there for the steam trains.

Money questions always seem to lead to fingers in ears.

 

[Nottingham59]

They do (and have done for decades), but the line from there towards London doesn't have any long steep gradients (max is about 1% I think), so they are within the capabilities of a single cl. 59 loco and the maximum coupler strength.

With steeper gradients, you'd either have to reduce the load or possibly fit a few locos with remote control and insert one mid-train ('distributed power') to keep the coupler forces within the train low enough. But then you'd run into train length limitations on some routes...

I think the gradient is around 1% from the Dore South junction up to the Bradway tunnel. Is there anything steeper on the MML south of there? And stone trains could always go the long way round through Sheffield and Barrow to avoid uphill gradients.

EDIT: Anyway, it seems to me there is scope to max out train lengths and operating hours before re-opening old lines. And if you are going to spend money on reopenings, then it would have much more impact to re-quad Dore-Sheffield than reopen Buxton-Matlock.

 

[yorksrob]

Why? Apart from your obsession with reopening every inch of track to every hamlet you've provided no justification for this one and have shifted your position depending on your mood it seems.

There isn't a huge demand for Buxton to London travel any more than there is from Gainsborough, Skegness or Glossop. The only improvement Buxton *really* needs is for the line to Manchester to be electrified which would improve journey times.

Care to identify where I've suggested reopening Aberystwyth to Carmarthen for example (that's a popular one on here which I've not proposed) or the Taunton to Barnstaple ?

I've provided plenty of justification. Several large settlements with limited public transport between them combined with a popular tourist area. Others have also mentioned freight potential.

Care to justify that ? Are you seriously claiming there would be more rail passengers if, for example, the GC was still open providing an alternative London - Leicester service or Leicester - Nottingham service ? Both corridors the Midland Mainline provides a much better service on.

There would absolutely be more rail passengers and a better, more resilient railway system if we still had "duplicate" routes such as Christs Hospital - Shoreham, Plymouth - Exeter via Okehampton, Derby - Manchester etc. You only have to see how often the existing system falls over, not to mention the intermediate settlements poorly served.

Depends who's asking Yorksrob it seems - because in the space of about 3 posts in responding to mine we had 'local' service, then regional, then London then Open Access - so you're as confused as I am. Though Memrap seem to envisage something akin to a Pendolino in terms of capacity which does feel a tad excessive for a Manchester - Derby local via the Peaks.

You seem to be unable to comprehend the concept of a mixed traffic railway.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I caught the train from Derby to Matlock this Bank Holiday Monday. It was a warm sunny day (the first this year?) and the train was well used but had seats available. Exactly two passengers transferred to the Trans-Peak bus heading north. Exactly zero other passengers boarded the bus at Matlock Interchange. Incidentally the Trans-Peak bus leaves Derby at the same time as the train so there is no time benefit, at present, of using the train.

 

[willgreen]

Several large settlements with limited public transport between

Neither Buxton, Matlock nor Bakewell are ‘large’, with respective populations of 20,000, 12,000 and 4,000. The public transport between them is also relatively good with an hourly bus (and an extra hourly Matlock-Bakewell), although I agree it would be good to increase bus frequency to at least 2tph.

 

[Kite159]

Just a factual point. Memrap have stated from day ONE that a replacement Monsal trail will be provided to at least as good a standard but with betterment already identified in places.

I look forward to reading how they plan to get round the tunnels on the new Monsal Trail when the current trail is ripped up.

Oh look, is that a flying pig I see dropping countless sacks of money?

So let's get this straight, someone with a lot of money wants to turn the popular walking/cycling trail back to a railway, somehow linking it up with the freight route, reopening the lost link between Bakewell & Rowsley (via the closed Haddon Tunnel), take over the tracks of the popular Peak Rail heritage line and somehow fit in extra services on the single track line from Ambergate Junction to Matlock with the expense of building a loop along the way (maybe at Cromford). Whilst at the same time building a brand-new bridleway close to the current bridleway which involves a few tunnels & a couple of viaducts as well as probably lots of work on the current tunnels (and viaducts/bridges) to ensure they are fit to carry trains once more.

Such a massive pie in the sky scheme where the sums don't add up, like reopening the former Didcot - Newbury - Whitchurch - Winchester line.

 

[Bald Rick]

This thread is hilarious.

There's a good political argument for reforming the cost benefit assessment.

It is updated regularly, most recently two weeks ago. Worth a read of it all.

Nevertheless, the process is used to prioritise expenditure, and it is fair to say that any reforms in favour of railway projects would not change this project’s priority compared to the current programme.

I would put Bedford-Cambridge in this category, although others disagree, and re-opening this section does have some political support despite a poor BCR.

It is also allied to proposals to build something lime 100,000 homes between them to generate the need for the line, which I assume isnt part of the plan in the peak district.

So let's get this straight, someone with a lot of money wants to turn the popular walking/cycling trail back to a railway, somehow linking it up with the freight route, reopening the lost link between Bakewell & Rowsley (via the closed Haddon Tunnel), take over the tracks of the popular Peak Rail heritage line and somehow fit in extra services on the single track line from Ambergate Junction to Matlock with the expense of building a loop along the way (maybe at Cromford). Whilst at the same time building a brand-new bridleway close to the current bridleway which involves a few tunnels & a couple of viaducts as well as probably lots of work on the current tunnels (and viaducts/bridges) to ensure they are fit to carry trains once more.

One correction. They haven’t a lot of money. This proposal would cost well north of £1bn.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But if that stone traffic went south via Matlock wouldn't it end up on the same MML (joining it just a bit further south)?

If it joins it at Dore (as now) at least it can travel via the Erewash Valley route and hence avoid Derby. Joining the ex-Midland Railway network at Dore also gives more flexible routing options to the south and eastern parts of England.

It would be able to spend a shorter time on the MML than through Dore (Dore to the Erewash Valley junction is roughly 12.5 miles, while Ambergate to the Derby-Nott jcn is roughly 11 miles). Add to that the distance heading south from Buxton would be significantly less than via the Hope Valley and you could see further modal shift away from road transport for the quarries - perhaps even Buxton Water which is quite close to the sidings in Peak Dale would be tempted given the frequent closures of all roads heading south from Buxton.

I think you're exaggerating somewhat - from the Cloud just outside Congleton you struggle to see Warrington. On a clear day you can't pick out much beyond Jodrell Bank and you've got another 20 ish miles from Jodrell onto Warrington with things like the M6 in the way.

Maybe, but the point stands that it would be a blot on the landscape.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be able to spend a shorter time on the MML than through Dore (Dore to the Erewash Valley junction is roughly 12.5 miles, while Ambergate to the Derby-Nott jcn is roughly 11 miles).

Ambergate to Trent South is the stretch, not to Derby. And if via Derby it would be through the Trent triangle, which is busy enough as it is without slow moving 2000t trains throught it, whereas this is avoided via the Erewash and high level lines.

Add to that the distance heading south from Buxton would be significantly less than via the Hope Valley and you could see further modal shift away from road transport for the quarries - perhaps even Buxton Water which is quite close to the sidings in Peak Dale would be tempted given the frequent closures of all roads heading south from Buxton.

Joyrney time diesnt really matter for Stone trains.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Ambergate to Trent South is the stretch, not to Derby. And if via Derby it would be through the Trent triangle, which is busy enough as it is without slow moving 2000t trains throught it, whereas this is avoided via the Erewash and high level lines.

Is the Trent triangle even busy at night?

Joyrney time diesnt really matter for Stone trains.

It could matter if you want to encourage modal shift, especially given the spiralling costs of road transport.

 

[A0wen]

It could matter if you want to encourage modal shift, especially given the spiralling costs of road transport.

For precision manufacturing using 'Just in time' inventory managrment ptinciples perhaps, but industries which are receiving loads that are a couple of thousand tons of aggregates aren't that kind of industry.

And whilst the costs of road transport may be "spiralling" to use your word, the cost of rail transport is so much higher than road that for anything other than the kind of bulk loads rail does well, that such "modal shift" is unlikely to ever occur on economic grounds.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the Trent triangle even busy at night?

Stone trains dont just run at night.

It could matter if you want to encourage modal shift, especially given the spiralling costs of road transport.

Road transport costs are reducing (source: a good friend who runs a haulage company).

 

[yorksrob]

Oh well that’s alright then. I want a swimming pool in my back garden but someone’s forcibly bought it and built one of their own. I’m so happy for them.

I notice you avoid the question of who is going to pay the compensation and relocation costs not to mention the money lost to the local economy. And before you say they’d be able to catch a train anyway you forget that the vast majority of visitors are there for the steam trains.

Money questions always seem to lead to fingers in ears.

Compensating land owners and businesses is a fairly standard capital cost of infrastructure projects.

Neither Buxton, Matlock nor Bakewell are ‘large’, with respective populations of 20,000, 12,000 and 4,000. The public transport between them is also relatively good with an hourly bus (and an extra hourly Matlock-Bakewell), although I agree it would be good to increase bus frequency to at least 2tph.

The bus takes an hour as well.

 

[The Planner]

And as I noted previously, the level of traffic would be rather less challenging than the WCML anyway (not that the WCML seems to experience particularly bad pathing issues anyway).

So basically making any case worse by only having a low level of traffic. The WCML is making best of what it has, there is little more you can do with it az it stands.

 

[yorksrob]

So basically making any case worse by only having a low level of traffic. The WCML is making best of what it has, there is little more you can do with it az it stands.

Realistically when would you expect a regional service to be as busy as the West Coast Main Line ?

It's not even as though the WCML is particularly beset by pathing issues. Seems to be staffing issues mainly.

 

[The Planner]

Realistically when would you expect a regional service to be as busy as the West Coast Main Line ?

It's not even as though the WCML is particularly beset by pathing issues. Seems to be staffing issues mainly.

If you are expecting someone to cough up a billion quid as has been repeatedly said, you need it to provide value for money. This doesn't. As for the WCML being beset with pathing issues, how much growth is there left in it that can be utillised? Not a lot.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Stone trains dont just run at night.




Road transport costs are reducing (source: a good friend who runs a haulage company).

Reducing compared to the post-Covid peak - but on a long term increased trajectory!

 

[yorksrob]

If you are expecting someone to cough up a billion quid as has been repeatedly said, you need it to provide value for money. This doesn't. As for the WCML being beset with pathing issues, how much growth is there left in it that can be utillised? Not a lot.

Take a look at Traksy. It's not exactly bursting at the seams most of the time.

 

[Neptune]

Compensating land owners and businesses is a fairly standard capital cost of infrastructure projects.

Of course but I’d like to know if this has been factored in and how much they think it would cost? Because I’d put money on it that if they have considered this (which I somehow doubt) you can probably add a few naughts on. I know enthusiasts love land grabs (see many other threads of this ilk) but they always seem to think that it would cost peanuts because… trains.

Still no mention of the loss to the national park of tourist attractions that would be lost. I’m surprised it doesn’t matter to enthusiasts that a heritage railway has to disbanded and precious heritage stock has to be potentially scrapped because there’s no space for all of it elsewhere.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course but I’d like to know if this has been factored in and how much they think it would cost? Because I’d put money on it that if they have considered this (which I somehow doubt) you can probably add a few naughts on. I know enthusiasts love land grabs (see many other threads of this ilk) but they always seem to think that it would cost peanuts because… trains.

Still no mention of the loss to the national park of tourist attractions that would be lost. I’m surprised it doesn’t matter to enthusiasts that a heritage railway has to disbanded and precious heritage stock has to be potentially scrapped because there’s no space for all of it elsewhere.

As someone mentioned upthread, there's a plan to provide an alternative route for the cycle way.

In terms of the heritage line, they've already relocated once (from Buxton). With decent compensation it wouldn't surprise me if they were to do so again. Also, given the much publicised struggles of the heritage sector, this could be an opportunity to consolidate resources with a partner railway.

In terms of "land grabs" I shouldn't need to remind you that this infrastructure was built by and for the railway

 

[zwk500]

Take a look at Traksy. It's not exactly bursting at the seams most of the time.

There's a magnificent irony in telling somebody called 'The Planner' to look at Traksy, and not at their in-office systems.

 

[Neptune]

As someone mentioned upthread, there's a plan to provide an alternative route for the cycle way.

Yes but as those who know the area have said there are doubts it will be anywhere near as decent and therefore popular as the current route?

In terms of the heritage line, they've already relocated once (from Buxton). With decent compensation it wouldn't surprise me if they were to do so again. Also, given the much publicised struggles of the heritage sector, this could be an opportunity to consolidate resources with a partner railway.

There’s a wonderful irony from someone who wants to spend someone else’s money to put the railway back to pre-Beeching but would be happy for stock from that same era which has been lovingly restored at great expense to themselves to be ‘consolidated’ ie scrapped.

In terms of "land grabs" I shouldn't need to remind you that this infrastructure was built by and for the railway

And sold off. I always love this weak argument.

If I built my own house and sold it I wouldn’t expect to take it back for peanuts evicting the current owners when the mood took me.

There's a magnificent irony in telling somebody called 'The Planner' to look at Traksy, and not at their in-office systems.

Haha that’s just what I was thinking.

 

[Falcon1200]

Memrap have stated from day ONE that a replacement Monsal trail will be provided to at least as good a standard but with betterment already identified in places.

How would that work at the viaducts and tunnels? Unless the railway was single track at such locations, with the inevitable restrictions on capacity and timetabling.

That's good as it should remove the principal objection.

The principal objection is surely the huge cost of this scheme! Has anyone with access to the requisite finance actually expressed any serious interest in the scheme?

Wasn't their founding ethos to reinstate the whole line anyway (bearing in mind they originally started at Buxton anyway).

IIRC Peak Rail had bases at both ends of the proposed heritage line, but had to relinquish the Buxton end as it was became apparent how unrealistic their plans were; Much as the scheme being discussed here.....

 

[yorksrob]

There's a magnificent irony in telling somebody called 'The Planner' to look at Traksy, and not at their in-office systems.

I know, teaching granny to suck eggs.

It was more for the general readership of the thread.

I often end up looking at it waiting for my opening at Carnforth and there really aren't that many trains on most of it. I'd have thought that somewhere on the Southern Region like Orpington to Tonbridge would be a closer example of a busy mixed use railway.

 

[ac6000cw]

Reducing compared to the post-Covid peak - but on a long term increased trajectory!

...as are railway costs.

Commodities like freight transport services from different suppliers generally price track because of market competition (and that competition is why freight transport generally has thin profit margins).