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

[daodao]

But the Monsal route links far larger settlements than the intermediate stops of the Hope Valley and consequently has larger passenger numbers.

It would likely have larger passenger numbers through the area again if it didn't have a large missing bit in the middle.

The "missing bits in the middle" are typically "over the watershed" between 2 different geographic economic zones and passenger travel between them is almost invariably less than along the ends of the overall route. While Buxton is technically on the eastern side of the E-W watershed running along the Pennines, it is effectively part of the Greater Manchester economic zone, with Bakewell and Matlock within the Derbyshire economic zone. Therefore there is little justification in terms of potential passenger numbers in re-opening the line between Buxton and Bakewell, and Bakewell is too small and the former station too poorly sited to merit re-opening of the section just between Matlock and Bakewell to regular passenger traffic.

Other similar "missing bits" are Okehampton-Tavistock and Skipton-Colne; it is interesting to note that both of these former lines are the subject of quite a lot of discussion in other threads on this forum, with certain posters strongly advocating their re-opening despite poor supporting evidence. The "missing bits in the middle" are best left that way for sound economic reasons.

 

[furnessvale]

Only because it would be the perception of getting their foot down, 99.9% of drivers wouldn't care less how the freight was moved as long as it emptied the roads.

So what! As long as the freight moves in a vastly more environmentally friendly way, I am happy. Having said that, I think your percentage is way out. A good percentage of EV drivers must have at least one eye on the environment.

 

[The Planner]

So what! As long as the freight moves in a vastly more environmentally friendly way, I am happy. Having said that, I think your percentage is way out. A good percentage of EV drivers must have at least one eye on the environment.

Or did they get subsidised prices as early adopters, no VED and using favourable charging tariffs such as Octopus?

 

[AlastairFraser]

so no, there's not the volume of freight to make rail viable.
having 1 train every couple of days between 3 factories means a lot of extra handling and storage that will increase costs. If you stopped 3 times to pick up the first factory loses any speed advantage. If its all concentrated on one railhead by road then why bother with the train at all instead of going straight to East Mids by road?

You'd bother mostly because the roads are so vulnerable to weather-based disruption and congestion that the journey time cannot be guaranteed even 24hrs from departure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2024 ==

So Swizzels's can't transport goods to a siding somewhere in the New Mills area because of the crap geography, but could transport them to a siding somewhere in the Buxton area - but only if a route through to Matlock existed?

The line adjacent to the factory is 70MPH where is passes - not exactly high speed. The other line, about 100m away from the factory, is only 50MPH. But I guess that must be very hard to get to, unless you're on your way to Buxton.

Of course they can transport it to a siding near Buxton now - but the existing line points in the wrong direction for a lot of their traffic towards the corridor of major supermarket distribution centres.

70mph and well used - the Buxton line through NM Newtown is a little different, but where could you get a small HGV to offload onto rail?

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst I can't speak at all for the suggested Peak Rail resurrection, it does seem generally to be the case that where a passenger service is resurrected (whether over extant freight routes - Okehampton recently - or over total reconstruction - Borders recently) the actual usage far exceeds all the predictions

No doubt that some new lines / stations exceed their passenger forecasts; that’s why you hear about them. However Project promoters aren’t known for putting out press releases telling all and sundry that passenegr numbers are below forecasts. Ask Airdrie - Bathgate, or East Mids Parkway, or Aylesbury Vale Parkway, etc etc.

 

[furnessvale]

You'd bother mostly because the roads are so vulnerable to weather-based disruption and congestion that the journey time cannot be guaranteed even 24hrs from departure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2024 ==


Of course they can transport it to a siding near Buxton now - but the existing line points in the wrong direction for a lot of their traffic towards the corridor of major supermarket distribution centres.

70mph and well used - the Buxton line through NM Newtown is a little different, but where could you get a small HGV to offload onto rail?

Why has the freight debate swung towards companies like Swizzels when the real prize is quarry products leaving existing rail connected quarries by road for the south because the diversion north by rail prices rail out of that market?

For example, the nearest rail served stone terminal to the north, where a direct line is available is 23km from the quarries. The nearest to the south, where a long diversion north is required is 76km. Both distances are as the crow flies, the actual distance a southbound train covers is some 35km longer.

A direct line south would bring Derby, Nottingham, Burton on Trent and others well within range of economic rail service as well as reducing costs for existing southbound trains which currently manage to beat the odds.

 

[WAO]

Bit in bold - can you provide evidence that they're "not quiet", because the station usage figures don't support you. (22/23)

Grindleford: 79k
Hathersage: 72k
Bamford 49k
Hope 76k
Edale 116k
Chinley 96k

Buxton 300k
Matlock 175k

That compares poorly with, for example, the Cotswold Line where Evesham, Moreton in Marsh, Kingham, Charlbury and Hanborough all have usage figures of over 200k.

The interesting point about these figures is that they are as high as they are, as residents number only in the hundreds. The present custom must be largely tourist, therefore.

The most immediate argument for restoration of a passenger service must be the size of the community served. Here Darley Dale, pop c4000, just a short hop north of Matlock must be a pressing case. Bakewell, similar in size is next but is further, with a tunnel and problematic bridge to restore. From Bakewell onwards, there's not much, and the Monsal Trail is, paradoxically a potential draw for rail travel!

The comparison with the lovely GWR Cotswold line, in a wealthy area, with two-class IET's speeding to Paddington via Oxford and Reading is instructive, in that patronage will respond to quality (and political favour).

The future of Peak Rail is another issue.

WAO

 

[The Planner]

Why has the freight debate swung towards companies like Swizzels when the real prize is quarry products leaving existing rail connected quarries by road for the south because the diversion north by rail prices rail out of that market?

For example, the nearest rail served stone terminal to the north, where a direct line is available is 23km from the quarries. The nearest to the south, where a long diversion north is required is 76km. Both distances are as the crow flies, the actual distance a southbound train covers is some 35km longer.

A direct line south would bring Derby, Nottingham, Burton on Trent and others well within range of economic rail service as well as reducing costs for existing southbound trains which currently manage to beat the odds.

Does it price it out though? Bulk flows like aggregates are very rarely time sensitive, completely the opposite to Intermodal flows.

 

[furnessvale]

Does it price it out though? Bulk flows like aggregates are very rarely time sensitive, completely the opposite to Intermodal flows.

Something is causing the disparity between the distance to northern terminals and that to southern terminals, perhaps it is worth investigating?

 

[HSTEd]

Something is causing the disparity between the distance to northern terminals and that to southern terminals, perhaps it is worth investigating?

How strong a driver is haul distance on cost of aggregates movements? Line haul costs are only part of the costs of operating costs, which will include terminal costs and the like.

In addition, assuming you somehow got easier access to the "south", do you actually win more traffic from rail or just eat into another rail based aggregate flow from a different location.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Why has the freight debate swung towards companies like Swizzels when the real prize is quarry products leaving existing rail connected quarries by road for the south because the diversion north by rail prices rail out of that market?

For example, the nearest rail served stone terminal to the north, where a direct line is available is 23km from the quarries. The nearest to the south, where a long diversion north is required is 76km. Both distances are as the crow flies, the actual distance a southbound train covers is some 35km longer.

A direct line south would bring Derby, Nottingham, Burton on Trent and others well within range of economic rail service as well as reducing costs for existing southbound trains which currently manage to beat the odds.

It hasn't neccesarily swung uniquely in favour of mixed goods trains - it just helps to boost the traffic potential in the business case. I otherwise totally agree.

 

[jimm]

The interesting point about these figures is that they are as high as they are, as residents number only in the hundreds. The present custom must be largely tourist, therefore.

The most immediate argument for restoration of a passenger service must be the size of the community served. Here Darley Dale, pop c4000, just a short hop north of Matlock must be a pressing case. Bakewell, similar in size is next but is further, with a tunnel and problematic bridge to restore. From Bakewell onwards, there's not much, and the Monsal Trail is, paradoxically a potential draw for rail travel!

The comparison with the lovely GWR Cotswold line, in a wealthy area, with two-class IET's speeding to Paddington via Oxford and Reading is instructive, in that patronage will respond to quality (and political favour).

The future of Peak Rail is another issue.

WAO

Not sure the Cotswold Line is that instructive a comparison.

Traffic patterns are very different from anything one might expect to see in the Peak District, with proximity to London an important consideration when it comes to the Cotswold Line.

As for supposed wealth hereabouts, the median household income in the Cotswold District Council area is only marginally higher than the comparable national figure.

Re political favour, I assume you are referring to Lord Cameron. The Cotswold Line redoubling project came about not because he uses the line but because Network Rail did an analysis of causes of delays on the GWML and worked out that a key factor was the number of late-running London-bound trains coming off the Cotswold Line, because of problems caused by the long single-line sections. The decision to invest was made and work started before Lord Dave took office as Prime Minister.

Similarly, the Swindon-Kemble redoubling was driven by the need to have a reliable diversionary route during electrification closures of the Severn Tunnel, not because of anything the MPs in that part of Gloucestershire said - even though they were all very keen to claim the credit.

 

[yorksrob]

Similarly, the Swindon-Kemble redoubling was driven by the need to have a reliable diversionary route during electrification closures of the Severn Tunnel, not because of anything the MPs in that part of Gloucestershire said - even though they were all very keen to claim the credit.

Yet according to the sage voices on this forum, diversionary capacity can form no part of any business case for capital works.

 

[A0]

Not sure the Cotswold Line is that instructive a comparison.

Traffic patterns are very different from anything one might expect to see in the Peak District, with proximity to London an important consideration when it comes to the Cotswold Line.

As for supposed wealth hereabouts, the median household income in the Cotswold District Council area is only marginally higher than the comparable national figure.

Re political favour, I assume you are referring to Lord Cameron. The Cotswold Line redoubling project came about not because he uses the line but because Network Rail did an analysis of causes of delays on the GWML and worked out that a key factor was the number of late-running London-bound trains coming off the Cotswold Line, because of problems caused by the long single-line sections. The decision to invest was made and work started before Lord Dave took office as Prime Minister.

Similarly, the Swindon-Kemble redoubling was driven by the need to have a reliable diversionary route during electrification closures of the Severn Tunnel, not because of anything the MPs in that part of Gloucestershire said - even though they were all very keen to claim the credit.

Bit in bold - Moreton in Marsh (about halfway along the Cotswold Line) is 90 miles to London, whereas the full Derby - Manchester distance is only 60 miles (Derby - Matlock is circa 20 miles), so much of the Peak Line less again.

And Manchester is an economic "pull" in the same way London is.

 

[The Planner]

Yet according to the sage voices on this forum, diversionary capacity can form no part of any business case for capital works.

Nice use of words, its said about re-openings, not any capital works. This was a railway that was already open and allowed more trains to run during major works. Much like electrifying the Poplar lines at Acton will facilitate getting 345s to be maintained during OOC works.

 

[A0]

Yet according to the sage voices on this forum, diversionary capacity can form no part of any business case for capital works.

Because it doesn't. Swindon - Kemble was a bottleneck in its own right and prevented increasing services against passenger growth on that line which was being seen.

The schemes you usually peddle are for reinstatements of long dead lines with the "and they offer diversion options" where such options are not realisable for a benefits case and the scheme overall is a basket case.

Swindon - Kemble was fairly cheap in the scheme of things

The £45 million upgrade of the Swindon-Kemble line has been completed, with improvements including reinstatement of the second line, earthworks to allow for the new track, and new signalling equipment.

£45m Swindon to Kemble redoubling completed

The £45 million upgrade of the Swindon-Kemble line has been completed

www.railmagazine.com

That was for 12 miles back in 2014 - but it shows the fundamental difference between upgrading an existing line and rebuilding a long defunct line - Swindon - Kemble being about £4m / mile, whereas the Borders Line cost more than double that (£350m / 35 miles = £10m a mile) and I'm pretty sure @Bald Rick will confirm the total cost of Borders was even higher.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yet according to the sage voices on this forum, diversionary capacity can form no part of any business case for capital works.

That is not the case, and is not what people have said.

Diversionary capacity can and does form part of the benefits of a business case for capital works. It can even form part of the benefits of a business case for new lines.

However, for major capital works, especially new lines which are - as we know - very expensive, it is a rather small part of the benefits case. And in all my time looking at such proposals, diversionary benefits have never been remotely close to becoming a decisive factor in new lines.

 

[WAO]

As for supposed wealth hereabouts, the median household income in the Cotswold District Council area is only marginally higher than the comparable national figure.

Try buying a house near one of the stations along the route. Plenty of full fare and first class tickets I imagine.

Re political favour, I assume you are referring to Lord Cameron. The Cotswold Line redoubling project came about not because he uses the line but because Network Rail did an analysis of causes of delays on the GWML and worked out that a key factor was the number of late-running London-bound trains coming off the Cotswold Line, because of problems caused by the long single-line sections. The decision to invest was made and work started before Lord Dave took office as Prime Minister.

I listened to the Transport debates about this and am aware of the influence MP's from Oxfordshire and its environs have on policy.

I still think that there is a relative case for improvements here, short of relaying Bakewell - Peak Forest, and that passenger custom will follow, not preceed service quality.

WAO

 

[yorksrob]

Nice use of words, its said about re-openings, not any capital works. This was a railway that was already open and allowed more trains to run during major works. Much like electrifying the Poplar lines at Acton will facilitate getting 345s to be maintained during OOC works.

That is not the case, and is not what people have said.

Diversionary capacity can and does form part of the benefits of a business case for capital works. It can even form part of the benefits of a business case for new lines.

However, for major capital works, especially new lines which are - as we know - very expensive, it is a rather small part of the benefits case. And in all my time looking at such proposals, diversionary benefits have never been remotely close to becoming a decisive factor in new lines.

Re-doubling a line must require a similar reconstruction of earthworks and testing of structures as reopening a closed one only:

- without creating a new market for new journey opportunities.

- with additional expense of compensating for disrupted additional railway services.

There should be a lot more justification for reopening a route outside of diversionary capability.

 

[The Planner]

Re-doubling a line must require a similar reconstruction of earthworks and testing of structures as reopening a closed one only:

- without creating a new market for new journey opportunities.

- with additional expense of compensating for disrupted additional railway services.

There should be a lot more justification for reopening a route outside of diversionary capability.

Why does it? in the case of Swindon Kemble, the line would have just been slewed to the middle of the formation when singled, which potentially made it faster as well. The lines was also in use, so the maintenance and inspection regime kept structures, earthworks etc up to scratch, so little to do. Compensation has to be paid when we maintain and renew the railway anyway. If Swindon Kemble needed track renewal when single, GWR would have been compensated for the disruption.

 

[yorksrob]

Why does it? in the case of Swindon Kemble, the line would have just been slewed to the middle of the formation when singled, which potentially made it faster as well. The lines was also in use, so the maintenance and inspection regime kept structures, earthworks etc up to scratch, so little to do. Compensation has to be paid when we maintain and renew the railway anyway. If Swindon Kemble needed track renewal when single, GWR would have been compensated for the disruption.

Singled lines aren't always slewed to the middle. A lot of the time one line seems to be lifted with the bed of the other left to deteriorate.

The majority of structures are maintained and repaired whether in use or not, particularly for a route like this which currently has a cycle way in it.

 

[A0]

Singled lines aren't always slewed to the middle. A lot of the time one line seems to be lifted with the bed of the other left to deteriorate.

The majority of structures are maintained and repaired whether in use or not, particularly for a route like this which currently has a cycle way in it.

Bit in bold - but to nothing like the same standard - bridges for example where the traffic is foot, cycle or horse aren't maintained to the same standard as one which is seeing regular traffic of a train weighing a couple of hundred tons. You only need to walk along some of the footpaths / cycleways on re-purposed railway lines to realise this.

 

[The Planner]

Singled lines aren't always slewed to the middle. A lot of the time one line seems to be lifted with the bed of the other left to deteriorate.

Doesn't matter, you don't just look after the side of the bridge or embankment the line is on.

The majority of structures are maintained and repaired whether in use or not, particularly for a route like this which currently has a cycle way in it.

Are they maintained to keep a railway going on top of it, or enough to keep bits falling off them and the insignifcant weight of people and cycles?

 

[yorksrob]

Doesn't matter, you don't just look after the side of the bridge or embankment the line is on.

Are they maintained to keep a railway going on top of it, or enough to keep bits falling off them and the insignifcant weight of people and cycles?

Bits falling off of bridges are a problem if they're falling onto trains or cyclists !

 

[A0]

Bits falling off of bridges are a problem if they're falling onto trains or cyclists !

Maybe so - but the the virbation caused by a couple of hundred pedestrians and dozen cyclists and a couple of horses a day is miniscule compared to a couple of trains a day - and that vibration is the thing which would start to dislodge masonry or damage pointing for example.

 

[Dr Hoo]

That is not the case, and is not what people have said.

Diversionary capacity can and does form part of the benefits of a business case for capital works. It can even form part of the benefits of a business case for new lines.

However, for major capital works, especially new lines which are - as we know - very expensive, it is a rather small part of the benefits case. And in all my time looking at such proposals, diversionary benefits have never been remotely close to becoming a decisive factor in new lines.

Whilst I broadly agree (as I generally do for your well informed and helpful posts) there can still be some minor exceptions. The Laverstock Curve at Salisbury was re-instated in the very early 1980s alongside the Salisbury re-signalling almost wholly to provide a diversionary route to Southampton during the re-construction of Southampton Tunnel. The re-establishment of a link at Anniesland between the spur from Maryhill and the North Clyde lines was done to enable diversions via Glasgow Queen Street Low Level during the extensive works at the High Level station and in Cowlairs Tunnel.

(In no way am I suggesting that this is particularly relevant for the Monsal route.)

 

[dosxuk]

Whilst I broadly agree (as I generally do for your well informed and helpful posts) there can still be some minor exceptions. The Laverstock Curve at Salisbury was re-instated in the very early 1980s alongside the Salisbury re-signalling almost wholly to provide a diversionary route to Southampton during the re-construction of Southampton Tunnel. The re-establishment of a link at Anniesland between the spur from Maryhill and the North Clyde lines was done to enable diversions via Glasgow Queen Street Low Level during the extensive works at the High Level station and in Cowlairs Tunnel.

(In no way am I suggesting that this is particularly relevant for the Monsal route.)

Both of these, and the one further up the thread, are examples of where a minor route has had an upgrade performed as part of a larger piece of work on a more major route because the additional capacity was required as part of that upgrade. That's a different scenario to trying to justify re-opening a route because it may be able to used as a diversion for unspecified and/or unplanned works on other lines in the future.

There is currently nothing being planned (or even suggested) which will require the re-opening of Matlock - Buxton to provide a diversion, so there's no other project to fund such a re-instatement.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe so - but the the virbation caused by a couple of hundred pedestrians and dozen cyclists and a couple of horses a day is miniscule compared to a couple of trains a day - and that vibration is the thing which would start to dislodge masonry or damage pointing for example.

Maybe so. However, I would expect that where a structure has been maintained for a footpath, it will be a lot easier and cheaper to bring it up to standard for rail traffic than for a structure that hasn't.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Maybe so. However, I would expect that where a structure has been maintained for a footpath, it will be a lot easier and cheaper to bring it up to standard for rail traffic than for a structure that hasn't.

We are talking about structures and earthworks that were never built for 25-tonne axle loads in the first place and have been gradually degrading for over 50 years. Now we are expecting them to support millions of tonnes of limestone and cement per year at fairly high speeds from day one.
Have you seen how many rabbit warrens there are in the embankments?

 

[zwk500]

Maybe so. However, I would expect that where a structure has been maintained for a footpath, it will be a lot easier and cheaper to bring it up to standard for rail traffic than for a structure that hasn't.

Your expectations are quite off. An 0.08t load travelling at 2-3mph will impose negligible forces on a bridge compared to a 20t+ axle load travelling at 60mph.
The bridge carrying a footpath will make inspection easier than if it was completely closed, but that's about it.