My idea for reopening Buxton-Matlock

[yorksrob]

In 1962 the Midland Pullman was allowed 72 minutes from leaving Manchester Central to passing Derby North Jn, including a 1½-minute stop at Cheadle Heath and 4 minutes recovery time.

Thanks Senex, that's very interesting information.

 

[8H]

Thanks Senex, that's very interesting information.

It is indeed, if you suggested a new link of the M1 to the M6 across the North somewhere or a daft road tunnel under the Pennines you will get listened to. Suggest a railway to link significant populations and someone, even on here, will start whining about crayons! I don't think the Rio diversion people mentioned earlier in this thread tells you anything about long term possible trends for flows being only ever a temporary service.

 

[yorksrob]

It is indeed, if you suggested a new link of the M1 to the M6 across the North somewhere or a daft road tunnel under the Pennines you will get listened to. Suggest a railway to link significant populations and someone, even on here, will start whining about crayons! I don't think the Rio diversion people mentioned earlier in this thread tells you anything about long term possible trends for flows being only ever a temporary service.

All too true !

 

[70014IronDuke]

Thanks Senex, that's very interesting information.

It is. I was actually looking to see if I could find the Midland Pullman timings earlier. It's a bit faster than I was estimating too.

However, where does it get us? The Midland Pullman was a Class 1 plus train, with special operating conditions, like extra headways scheduled. It also only stopped the once.

It went to Central (not Piccadilly) - I don't know if the approach to Central was faster than to today's Piccadilly - I have a feeling it might have been.

But let's assume you could get 72 minutes on a one-stop schedule, on a reopened Derby-Man Picc today. You would in fact be stopping at least twice - Matlock and Bakewell, Millers DAle for Buxton? Probably Chinley too? That's going to push your 72 min timing towards 81-82 mins. Add 30 mins (?) Nottingham to Derby + Derby stop. You are talking about 111 - 112 minutes Nottingham - Manchester at a guess.

How would that compare to Nottingham-Dore South-Stockport-Man Picc today?

 

[Chester1]

It is indeed, if you suggested a new link of the M1 to the M6 across the North somewhere or a daft road tunnel under the Pennines you will get listened to. Suggest a railway to link significant populations and someone, even on here, will start whining about crayons! I don't think the Rio diversion people mentioned earlier in this thread tells you anything about long term possible trends for flows being only ever a temporary service.

Its daft simply because Manchester and Derby could be linked via the Hope Valley with the addition of 2 passing loops and avoiding Sheffield if there is ever demand for a direct service. Two passing loops that are already planned or rebuilding half a line and upgrading the remaining half.... The cost difference is enormous and can never be justified. Hope Valley currently runs 2.5tph + freight, the passing loops should double this capacity and there are plenty of options for further capacity increases. Neither Matlock-Buxton or Woodhead reopening will ever make financial sense until the Hope Valley route is opperating at the limit of its maximum possible capacity, which is probably somewhere in the region of four times its current capacity, perhaps more. Resignalling and electrification, passing loops, rebuilding stations with through tracks and line speed upgrades will always have a better business case than reopening a line.

A road tunnel under the Pennines is not daft when the main roads between Manchester and South Yorkshire are single carriageways with no chance of being doubled due to crossing a national park. Its easy to see how a business case can (and probably will) be written that shows toll revanue would pay for the construction cost.

Just because people are on this site doesn't mean we think that rail is always the answer or that we blindly support any reopening scheme. I am a civil servant and would like to work for the DfT or a regional transport body at some point and try to look at projects dispassionately. This proposal has litterally no sane business case for the foreseeable future. Any objective apart from reopening the line for the sake of it can be achieved through a much cheaper alternative or is not worth the enormous cost of reopening the line. There are some routes that are viable to reopen, this is not one of them.

 

[yorksrob]

This proposal has litterally no sane business case for the foreseeable future. Any objective apart from reopening the line for the sake of it can be achieved through a much cheaper alternative or is not worth the enormous cost of reopening the line. There are some routes that are viable to reopen, this is not one of them.

There is clearly no alternative for getting decent public transport to within the Peak District national park. Like most civil servants (in England) you are solely thinking within the envelope of the existing railway.

By the way, please can someone get on with the routes that are judged to be viable for reopening. We're still waiting - twenty years and counting.

 

[Chester1]

There is clearly no alternative for getting decent public transport to within the Peak District national park. Like most civil servants (in England) you are solely thinking within the envelope of the existing railway.

By the way, please can someone get on with the routes that are judged to be viable for reopening. We're still waiting - twenty years and counting.

Yes there is a public transport alternative: buses. If an enhanced limited stop bus service cannot be introduced then reopening the line will never be viable. You are starting with the answer you want and then trying to think of any argument that could justify it rather than starting with problems and working out the most sensible solutions. Thats why a reopening list has not been written by the government. If a reopening is the best solution to a local or regional transport problem then it might be done but wont be done just for the sake of it even if it might have a decent business case, because it may not be the solution to the problem with the best business case.

 

[Chester1]

Delete - double post.

 

[Kettledrum]

Yes there is a public transport alternative: buses. If an enhanced limited stop bus service cannot be introduced then reopening the line will never be viable. You are starting with the answer you want and then trying to think of any argument that could justify it rather than starting with problems and working out the most sensible solutions. Thats why a reopening list has not been written by the government. If a reopening is the best solution to a local or regional transport problem then it might be done but wont be done just for the sake of it even if it might have a decent business case, because it may not be the solution to the problem with the best business case.

:roll:

The comment about buses takes us back to the arguments put forward by Marples and Beeching. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Fast, Frequent and Reliable buses may work in London, Manchester and Birmingham, but not in connecting our regions. The future has to be rail. HS2 will enable people to commute to London from Chesterfield. Try doing that by bus. Try telling someone in Derby they could get a job in Manchester and commute by bus. It won't work will it? We all know that there are huge economic benefits from having a more mobile and flexible workforce, and the railways are the best way of doing that. We have it in London, we don't in the Midlands and North. This is where the rail re-opening business cases are failing us, as they fail to take into account suppressed demand and these wider economic benefits.

Our obsession with business cases makes us extremely cautious.

As a result, rail re-openings in the UK rarely happen....and when they do, the passenger numbers exceed demand by so much they we wonder why we didn't build the line with more capacity. Unlike in many other countries.

So why is it that the so called "business cases" apparently stack up in other countries, but apparently not in the UK?

 

[yorksrob]

Yes there is a public transport alternative: buses. If an enhanced limited stop bus service cannot be introduced then reopening the line will never be viable. You are starting with the answer you want and then trying to think of any argument that could justify it rather than starting with problems and working out the most sensible solutions. Thats why a reopening list has not been written by the government. If a reopening is the best solution to a local or regional transport problem then it might be done but wont be done just for the sake of it even if it might have a decent business case, because it may not be the solution to the problem with the best business case.

Oh please - buses ? They hardly represent an adequate solution for people travelling longer distances, particularly along congested roads.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There is clearly no alternative for getting decent public transport to within the Peak District national park. Like most civil servants (in England) you are solely thinking within the envelope of the existing railway.

By the way, please can someone get on with the routes that are judged to be viable for reopening. We're still waiting - twenty years and counting.

Is it really the case that there is a rail-based solution to the supposed inadequacies of public transport in the Peak District National Park? By their very nature national parks are relatively undeveloped areas with minimal prospects of increased population.

Not everybody may appreciate that Bakewell is the largest town in the Park but has a population of less than 4,000. (In contrast somewhere like Wisbech, often touted for a rail reopening, has a population of over 30,000.) The former station was nearly a mile from the town centre, up a hill (shades of Okehampton) and its reopening would add very little in terms of genuine connectivity.

Presuming that we are thinking in terms of through services that are intended to have attractive overall journey times there are surely no other stations that would justify reopening (unless Millers Dale was seen as an operational junction with shuttles/connections to and from Chinley or Buxton, etc.)

In terms of genuine 'access' to enjoy the Peak District the Monsal Trail (owned by the Park, not Sustrans or any other cycling group) allows almost everybody to enjoy a wide range of scenery, wildlife and so forth on foot, by bicycle, horse, scooter or wheelchair in conjunction with many other activities. This seems to me to be far more 'inclusive' than a single option of chugging along in an air-conditioned tube on an hourly basis when you can't even take a decent photograph.

Such a service would provide minimal relief to the Hope Valley line, which was the original basis for the suggested reopening.

 

[Greybeard33]

It is. I was actually looking to see if I could find the Midland Pullman timings earlier. It's a bit faster than I was estimating too.

However, where does it get us? The Midland Pullman was a Class 1 plus train, with special operating conditions, like extra headways scheduled. It also only stopped the once.

It went to Central (not Piccadilly) - I don't know if the approach to Central was faster than to today's Piccadilly - I have a feeling it might have been.

But let's assume you could get 72 minutes on a one-stop schedule, on a reopened Derby-Man Picc today. You would in fact be stopping at least twice - Matlock and Bakewell, Millers DAle for Buxton? Probably Chinley too? That's going to push your 72 min timing towards 81-82 mins. Add 30 mins (?) Nottingham to Derby + Derby stop. You are talking about 111 - 112 minutes Nottingham - Manchester at a guess.

How would that compare to Nottingham-Dore South-Stockport-Man Picc today?

Hazel Grove to Manchester Central via Cheadle Heath and Chorlton in the 1960s was a fast main line as far as Throstle Nest Junction. Today's route from Hazel Grove to Piccadilly is 30mph over the Hazel Grove chord, 40mph from Hazel Grove to Edgeley Junction, 25mph over the junction, then a stop at Stockport.

To get back the speed and capacity benefits of the ex-Midland Main Line from Derby to Manchester, you would have to reopen not only Matlock to Great Rocks but also Cheadle Heath to Manchester Central. Much of the latter alignment has been converted to Metrolink. Manchester Central is now a convention complex and the viaduct across the Mersey valley from Cheadle Heath to Heaton Mersey has been demolished.

 

[yorksrob]

Is it really the case that there is a rail-based solution to the supposed inadequacies of public transport in the Peak District National Park? By their very nature national parks are relatively undeveloped areas with minimal prospects of increased population.

Not everybody may appreciate that Bakewell is the largest town in the Park but has a population of less than 4,000. (In contrast somewhere like Wisbech, often touted for a rail reopening, has a population of over 30,000.) The former station was nearly a mile from the town centre, up a hill (shades of Okehampton) and its reopening would add very little in terms of genuine connectivity.

Presuming that we are thinking in terms of through services that are intended to have attractive overall journey times there are surely no other stations that would justify reopening (unless Millers Dale was seen as an operational junction with shuttles/connections to and from Chinley or Buxton, etc.)

In terms of genuine 'access' to enjoy the Peak District the Monsal Trail (owned by the Park, not Sustrans or any other cycling group) allows almost everybody to enjoy a wide range of scenery, wildlife and so forth on foot, by bicycle, horse, scooter or wheelchair in conjunction with many other activities. This seems to me to be far more 'inclusive' than a single option of chugging along in an air-conditioned tube on an hourly basis when you can't even take a decent photograph.

Such a service would provide minimal relief to the Hope Valley line, which was the original basis for the suggested reopening.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't reopen Wisbech (although I'm sure the usual suspects will be along to say there's no business case for that either).

There is plenty of opportunity for such a route to relieve the Hope Valley line. If you take away trains taking people to the East Midlands, you can concentrate the route's capacity on people travelling to Sheffield and eastwards.

If the Monsal Trail is that good at getting people to the tourist areas, why not close the Settle & Carlisle and turn that into a cycleway. I could walk to Appleby (even though it would probably take two days).

 

[Joseph_Locke]

March - Wisbech reopening has a business case, but only if trains can run through, Wisbech - Ely - Cambridge. Fixing Ely North appears to beyond the wit of Anglia Route, so no dice.

Given the obvious complexities of getting high through speeds, Buxton - Matlock makes much more sense as a freight route than anything else, surely?

As to reinstating the quadruple track between New Mills South Junction and Chinley; why, can I ask?

 

[Senex]

How would that compare to Nottingham-Dore South-Stockport-Man Picc today?

An interesting question. The RIO net time for passing Chesterfield to stopping in Stockport was 42½ minutes, so let's assume 44 minutes start-to-stop. Add on a minute for a Stockport set-down stop and then 10 minutes on to Piccadilly (to include recovery time) and you have 55 minutes Chesterfield to Manchester—and I'd suggest there'a a good 5 minutes to come out of that from realtively small route improvements, some of which have already been suggested (like getting back up to the old line-speed between Stockport and Hazel Grove). The best time I've found on a quick check for Nottingham to Chesterfield is 31 minutes.

I suggest that if we're thinking of a connection between Nottingham and Manchester, this could be provided in a bit less than 1½ hours via the Erewash Valley and Dore South Jn, and that this would be significantly faster than anything possible via Derby and Matlock. If we are thinking about Leicester and Derby to Manchester, then I think the Dore route could be at least as good as anything possible over a restored Matlock route.

Restoration of the Matlock route, even if it were restored to take the route via Buxton and Whaley Bridge rather than via Peak Forest, seems unlikely to justify the investment when a very much smaller investment in the Hope Valley line would give much better system benefits.

(And I do remember what a wonderful run it was through the Peak District, especially when having dinner north of Derby on a down express from St Pancras—the 4:25 p.m. was rather a nice one!)

 

[Senex]

As to reinstating the quadruple track between New Mills South Junction and Chinley; why, can I ask?

The quadding was done for the heavy freight flows, which aren't there any more. What would restoring it do that a reversible passenger loop in Chinley station would not do, in capacity terms?

One thing that would be good, when New Mills South Jn next comes up for attention, would be to get rid of the dog's leg that was built into the main lines at that point when the quadding was done and so get rid of the 70 PSR that results from it.

 

[AndrewE]

:roll:

The comment about buses takes us back to the arguments put forward by Marples and Beeching. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Fast, Frequent and Reliable buses may work in London, Manchester and Birmingham, but not in connecting our regions.

So why is it that the so called "business cases" apparently stack up in other countries, but apparently not in the UK?

I doubt that anywhere has buses that are "Fast, Frequent and Reliable" (although Edinburgh is pretty good - if not fast - in my experience.)

Reminds me of the (not) joke about the rural garage that had a sign on the wall "Our work has 3 characteristics, Good, Quick and Cheap. Unfortunately you can only ever have 2 on one job!"

I suspect other countries' "business cases" are a) looking at wider benefits and so b) not focussed on cash return.

 

[AndrewE]

The quadding was done for the heavy freight flows, which aren't there any more. What would restoring it do that a reversible passenger loop in Chinley station would not do, in capacity terms?

Allow both fast and slow passenger trains to run reliably, even when a carefully planned timetable wasn't going as intended?

 

[edwin_m]

Although New Mills South to Chinley would be the easiest bit for widening, being outside the National Park and with existing formation intact, it is probably in the wrong place to give much benefit. The capacity benefit of an overtaking section is maximised if it is near the middle of the section where all the trains share the same track, but New Mills South is right at one end so the shared section is only shortened a bit instead of being halved.

A third track leading to a third platform at Chinley could allow any Chinley terminators via Marple to operate independently of the fast Hope Valley trains. However this wouldn't be worthwhile (if at all) until there were significantly more of both types of train than currently proposed, which couldn't happen without enhancements elsewhere on the Hope Valley.

 

[AndrewE]

I doubt that anywhere has buses that are "Fast, Frequent and Reliable" (although Edinburgh is pretty good - if not fast - in my experience.)

I spoke too soon/naming calls:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41301405

Eight people have been hurt after a double-decker bus crashed into an overhead walkway at an Edinburgh hospital.

Bad news.

 

[muddythefish]

A road tunnel under the Pennines is not daft when the main roads between Manchester and South Yorkshire are single carriageways with no chance of being doubled due to crossing a national park. Its easy to see how a business case can (and probably will) be written that shows toll revanue would pay for the construction cost.
There are some routes that are viable to reopen, this is not one of them.

So a multi-billion pound road tunnel under the Pennines is fine but a more modest rail reinstatement scheme linking 2 regions not currently connected directly is deemed too expensive.

Are you sure you don't work for the DfT already?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

A third track leading to a third platform at Chinley could allow any Chinley terminators via Marple to operate independently of the fast Hope Valley trains. However this wouldn't be worthwhile (if at all) until there were significantly more of both types of train than currently proposed, which couldn't happen without enhancements elsewhere on the Hope Valley.

Funny, there's a design for a third track but no third platform ... Northern Hub shelved scheme (another one).

 

[Chester1]

:roll:

The comment about buses takes us back to the arguments put forward by Marples and Beeching. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Fast, Frequent and Reliable buses may work in London, Manchester and Birmingham, but not in connecting our regions. The future has to be rail. HS2 will enable people to commute to London from Chesterfield. Try doing that by bus. Try telling someone in Derby they could get a job in Manchester and commute by bus. It won't work will it? We all know that there are huge economic benefits from having a more mobile and flexible workforce, and the railways are the best way of doing that. We have it in London, we don't in the Midlands and North. This is where the rail re-opening business cases are failing us, as they fail to take into account suppressed demand and these wider economic benefits.

Our obsession with business cases makes us extremely cautious.

As a result, rail re-openings in the UK rarely happen....and when they do, the passenger numbers exceed demand by so much they we wonder why we didn't build the line with more capacity. Unlike in many other countries.

So why is it that the so called "business cases" apparently stack up in other countries, but apparently not in the UK?

The reference to Marples and Beeching really sums up the whole idea. Its simply about wanting to reverse a decision made 50 years ago that you don't like, regardless of the needs and costs today. No one would commute from Derby to Manchester by bus, I never stated buses could handle this market. The intercity market can be served using the Hope Valley either via Sheffield or not.

Oh please - buses ? They hardly represent an adequate solution for people travelling longer distances, particularly along congested roads.

Again, longer distances are already served by rail and could be significantly better served by relatively cheap upgrades to existing rail infrastructure without the cost of building a new line. If there is sufficient demand then limited stop bus services and joint ticketing with Manchester-Buxton and Matlock-Derby train services would test the demand. Or if you want an alternative to the existing rail network how about a regular coach service stopping just at Manchester, Stockport, Buxton, Bakewell, Matlock and Derby? The answer is it doesn't involve turning back the clock.

 

[yorksrob]

If there is sufficient demand then limited stop bus services and joint ticketing with Manchester-Buxton and Matlock-Derby train services would test the demand. Or if you want an alternative to the existing rail network how about a regular coach service stopping just at Manchester, Stockport, Buxton, Bakewell, Matlock and Derby? The answer is it doesn't involve turning back the clock.

And we all know what the answer would be if we test the demand and find that the said bus service is extremely popular.

"Oh, we don't need to install a railway because there's a bus service there".

Unfortunately the "anything but rail" mindset is alive and kicking.

Incidentally, I've often wondered why no one's ever come up with through train-bus ticketing to Padstow. Fine ideas but no one ever seems to put them into practice.

 

[Chester1]

And we all know what the answer would be if we test the demand and find that the said bus service is extremely popular.

"Oh, we don't need to install a railway because there's a bus service there".

Unfortunately the "anything but rail" mindset is alive and kicking.

Incidentally, I've often wondered why no one's ever come up with through train-bus ticketing to Padstow. Fine ideas but no one ever seems to put them into practice.

Buses and coaches have limitations and there is a tipping point when there is sufficient demand to be confident that the ticket revenue will pay for both operating costs and building costs. Rail is better for speed, comfort and longer journeys. However, there is already a viable route for Manchester to Derby via rail that would need a fraction of the infrastructure investment. Derby-Matlock and Buxton-Manchester already have train services that could be improved with relatively low investment. Rail cannot compete on cost with buses for short journeys. That leaves middle distance flows not served by the existing rail services e.g. Buxton/Bakewell to Derby and Matlock/Bakewell to Manchester. If there is demand an express quality bus or coach service could serve this market at a tiny fraction of the cost of building a railway. If Buxton and Matlock had 2-4tph, Hope Valley was full and had a popular Manchester-Derby service and there was a much bigger bus network in the area then there would be a decent business case.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Where on earth is there clear blue sky thinking on this topic please? We are into the minutiae of line speeds, loops, line capacity etc when we haven't even got a route.

Perhaps we need to stand back and remember what we had seventy years ago, on nationalisation when effectively the GNR and the LNWR got their own back on the Midland and the Great Central - by closing them down.

London to Manchester was available from Marylebone, St Pancras and Euston. Inter Regional journeys spurred in and out along the way allowing all sorts of exotic journeys such as Bradford to Paignton, Manchester to Bournemouth, the Harwich Boat Train etc. Suggest that now and you get some bean counter telling you what is affordable - result - half of the Borders line built single track - madness!!!

The few miles of line from Millers Dale to Matlock must re-open and the negotiations there are with PPPB and Haddon Hall. We should hear no more about congested WCML. No wonder the poor thing is full - its trying to carry the capacity of three lines and more- see above.

Woodhead needs to follow - with a triangular junction at Penistone and a curve where the current tram depot is at Sheffield to access Midland. No need to electrify Standege. We have an electric tunnel but Network Rail would prefer you forget about it!

Now you have three routes from the Great Wen to civilisation again, plus renewed capacity to the North and North East again, choices of inter regional, diversionary routes, and multifarious reasons why HS2 is not the answer - I know it won't happen - so do you - but at least someone is thinking out of the box!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Fast, Frequent and Reliable buses may work in London, Manchester and Birmingham, but not in connecting our regions. The future has to be rail. HS2 will enable people to commute to London from Chesterfield. Try doing that by bus. Try telling someone in Derby they could get a job in Manchester and commute by bus. It won't work will it? We all know that there are huge economic benefits from having a more mobile and flexible workforce, and the railways are the best way of doing that. We have it in London, we don't in the Midlands and North. This is where the rail re-opening business cases are failing us, as they fail to take into account suppressed demand and these wider economic benefits.

If someone living in Derby gets a new job in Manchester they then up sticks and buy / rent a place much closer to Manchester. The cost of buying / renting is unlikely to be any more expensive and the shorter the commute the better.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think any case for reopening the route should be based on its intrinsic traffic potential (ie Leicester/Loughborough/Derby - an let's not forget the sizeable town of Belper) and not include plans to divert Norwich - Liverpool trains this way. Unless, for any reason, EMT were screaming to do so, I get the impression that service works quite well.

I wouldn't call Belper with a population of 22,000 a sizeable town. If you live in Belper and need to head north by train you are better off driving to Alfreton and catching the train there.

 

[Greybeard33]

London to Manchester was available from Marylebone, St Pancras and Euston. Inter Regional journeys spurred in and out along the way allowing all sorts of exotic journeys such as Bradford to Paignton, Manchester to Bournemouth, the Harwich Boat Train etc. Suggest that now and you get some bean counter telling you what is affordable - result - half of the Borders line built single track - madness!!!here on earth is there clear blue sky thinking on this topic please? We are into the minutiae of line speeds, loops, line capacity etc when we haven't even got a route.

Huh? XC runs hourly Voyagers between Manchester and Bournemouth. Never heard it called an exotic journey before!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Where on earth is there clear blue sky thinking on this topic please? We are into the minutiae of line speeds, loops, line capacity etc when we haven't even got a route.

Perhaps we need to stand back and remember what we had seventy years ago, on nationalisation when effectively the GNR and the LNWR got their own back on the Midland and the Great Central - by closing them down.

London to Manchester was available from Marylebone, St Pancras and Euston. Inter Regional journeys spurred in and out along the way allowing all sorts of exotic journeys such as Bradford to Paignton, Manchester to Bournemouth, the Harwich Boat Train etc. Suggest that now and you get some bean counter telling you what is affordable - result - half of the Borders line built single track - madness!!!

The few miles of line from Millers Dale to Matlock must re-open and the negotiations there are with PPPB and Haddon Hall. We should hear no more about congested WCML. No wonder the poor thing is full - its trying to carry the capacity of three lines and more- see above.

Woodhead needs to follow - with a triangular junction at Penistone and a curve where the current tram depot is at Sheffield to access Midland. No need to electrify Standege. We have an electric tunnel but Network Rail would prefer you forget about it!

Now you have three routes from the Great Wen to civilisation again, plus renewed capacity to the North and North East again, choices of inter regional, diversionary routes, and multifarious reasons why HS2 is not the answer - I know it won't happen - so do you - but at least someone is thinking out of the box!

Triangular junction at Penistone????!!!! Where are you planning on putting the third axis? Deepcar to Barnsley? Woodhead to Denby Dale? Both would be pointless! There have been some pretty outrageous suggestions posted on this forum over the years but axing Standedge upgrade in favour of reopening Woodhead has to be up there... especially with presumably using the Huddersfield to Penistone line as a way of getting from Leeds to Manchester! Can I have some of whatever you've been drinking?