Alternative route for freight trains, to avoid the congested Hope Valley?

[furnessvale]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hope-valley-capacity-scheme.168285/

Providing you can get it out at Dore. It is marvellous if your freight appears in it's booked path and all of the passenger services and other freights do the same but these trains are quite often poor runners, either losing time on the schedule or presenting late at the terminal. Having them pile up at Totley waiting to turn left or right stuffs the job up properly.

Thus the loop becomes useful for regulating because you can take into account the fact it needs to get up the hill into Bamford in your margin, in theory.

I think the nature of the route means it will never run smoothly all of the time (particularly with the speed restrictions in Cowburn and Totley tunnels at the moment) but more options help.

The loop at Earles on the down does come in useful for example.

Sounds like an alternative route is needed for the (ever increasing number of) freight trains.

Peaks and Dales anyone? It would even provide a faster route for North West-East Midlands passengers as well.

 

[D365]

Sounds like an alternative route is needed for the (ever increasing number of) freight trains.

Peaks and Dales anyone? It would even provide a faster route for North West-East Midlands passengers as well.

Uh oh, this discussion again

 

[furnessvale]

Uh oh, this discussion again

Yes, it won't go away! Rather like congestion on the Hope Valley line unless something is done about it.

 

[Jozhua]

Sounds like an alternative route is needed for the (ever increasing number of) freight trains.

Peaks and Dales anyone? It would even provide a faster route for North West-East Midlands passengers as well.

Peaks and Dales, Peaks and Dales, Peaks and Dales!!! Would give a ton of places much better service, including some fairly transit overlooked rural towns.

Something needs to be done. We have longer Transpennine trains now, which is good, East Mids still provides a service that is far too short. Ultimately journey times are still too long for East Midlands - North West. Takes as long to do 50 miles from Manchester as it does for 200 down to London.

 

[Bald Rick]

Takes as long to do 50 miles from Manchester as it does for 200 down to London.

Which part of the East Midlands is 200 miles from London?

 

[Killingworth]

Which part of the East Midlands is 200 miles from London?

Chesterfield to Manchester is about 50 miles and to London nearly 150. Train takes only 10 minutes more to get to London.

 

[davyp]

"Takes as long to do 50 miles from Manchester as it does for 200 down to London."

"Which part of the East Midlands is 200 miles from London?"

Similar time for 50 miles from Man to East Mids as 200 miles from Man to London.

 

[Jozhua]

"Takes as long to do 50 miles from Manchester as it does for 200 down to London."

"Which part of the East Midlands is 200 miles from London?"

Similar time for 50 miles from Man to East Mids as 200 miles from Man to London.

Yeah, I was comparing Manchester to London vs East Mids to london

 

[RT4038]

Here is my controversial suggestion to increase capacity on the Hope Valley line:
1. Increase the number of carriages on each passenger train to eight or more
2. Choose one of the intermediate stations (Grindleford-Edale) to be developed as Hope Valley Central and close the rest. Run a network of mini/midi buses in the valley to and from Hope Valley Central.
3. Run 2tph between Sheffield and Manchester [extended either end as appropriate], with one stopping at Hope Valley Central
4. Divert the Nottingham-Liverpool train to run via Derby, Chesterfield and direct to Hope Valley Central. Replace the Nottingham-Sheffield via Alfreton section by extending another service. (from Norwich or Leeds?)
5. Sort the junction(s) at Dore
6. Resignal the line to permit closest headway of trains.
7. Electrify.

Much cheaper and less controversial than re-opening the Bakewell route, and plenty of freight train capacity.

 

[Jozhua]

Here is my controversial suggestion to increase capacity on the Hope Valley line:
1. Increase the number of carriages on each passenger train to eight or more
2. Choose one of the intermediate stations (Grindleford-Edale) to be developed as Hope Valley Central and close the rest. Run a network of mini/midi buses in the valley to and from Hope Valley Central.
3. Run 2tph between Sheffield and Manchester [extended either end as appropriate], with one stopping at Hope Valley Central
4. Divert the Nottingham-Liverpool train to run via Derby, Chesterfield and direct to Hope Valley Central. Replace the Nottingham-Sheffield via Alfreton section by extending another service. (from Norwich or Leeds?)
5. Sort the junction(s) at Dore
6. Resignal the line to permit closest headway of trains.
7. Electrify.

Much cheaper and less controversial than re-opening the Bakewell route, and plenty of freight train capacity.

That's worse than any of the existing proposals. You do realise that stoppers also serve quite a few intermediate stations beyond the central Hope Valley stops? Also, we should not be closing train stations unless it is an absolute last resort (it is not).

Having a service run straight up to Hope Valley Central and then needing to change would result in journey times from Derby/East Midlands probably not dissimilar to now. Especially if people from Nottingham have to change twice to do it.

Agree on lengthening trains, sorting junctions at Dore, Resignalling and Electrifying. I think doing that at minimum would decrease journey times and increase reliability.

What can't remain is the status quo of ignoring the issue, which is central government's plan.

Re-opening the Bakewell route is also to serve the intermediate communities. The fact it can both run a stopping service and still provide comparable journey times to the existing options is pretty fantastic in itself.

 

[tbtc]

Here is my controversial suggestion to increase capacity on the Hope Valley line:
1. Increase the number of carriages on each passenger train to eight or more
2. Choose one of the intermediate stations (Grindleford-Edale) to be developed as Hope Valley Central and close the rest. Run a network of mini/midi buses in the valley to and from Hope Valley Central.
3. Run 2tph between Sheffield and Manchester [extended either end as appropriate], with one stopping at Hope Valley Central
4. Divert the Nottingham-Liverpool train to run via Derby, Chesterfield and direct to Hope Valley Central. Replace the Nottingham-Sheffield via Alfreton section by extending another service. (from Norwich or Leeds?)
5. Sort the junction(s) at Dore
6. Resignal the line to permit closest headway of trains.
7. Electrify.

Much cheaper and less controversial than re-opening the Bakewell route, and plenty of freight train capacity.

Okay, if lists are the way forward, here's my suggestions:

1. Four track from Sheffield Midland to the junction at Dore
2. Four platforms at Dore, enabling regular connections from the MML to Hope Valley without needing to go into Sheffield and back out again
3. Replace the current "Regional Railways" services in the area with a half hourly Nottingham - Leeds and a half hourly Manchester Piccadilly - Doncaster (extending hourly to Cleethorpes/ Hull), making things more reliable, focussing on running services in relatively straight lines (rather than the current Norwich - Liverpool, Nottingham - Leeds, Sheffield - Hull, Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes, Leeds - Lincoln), more resilient in the event of anything going wrong
4. Increase the length of these services to at least 6x23m (or equivalent)
5. Forget about some of the current links between places that are over an hour apart (e.g. Liverpool to Nottingham) - we can't link everywhere to everywhere, we'd be better focussing on reliable services within regular commuter distances.
6. But what to do about the Hope Valley stopper?

Since the Hope Valley stopper eats up capacity, it has to be incredibly carefully timed - for example, it takes 41m westbound from Sheffield to Chinley, so leaves civilisation just a couple of minutes after the westbound TPE but gets to Chinley just ten minutes before the westbound EMR (which takes around 24m to pass Chinley). At around 75m, it's of essentially no use for Sheffield - Manchester passengers (unless the long distance services collapse, but then, by having such an awkwardly pathed stopper, you are inviting the longer distance services to become unreliable!).

So, the two options are either...

...introduce a half hourly skip-stopping service that aims to do the journey in closer to an hour - i.e. extending all of the Piccadilly - New Mills services through to Sheffield - so that there's less scope to delay the longer distance services, and by speeding it up you might attract some passengers from the longer distance trains. Looking at the annual passenger numbers:

• Dore: 199,000
• Grindleford: 58,616
• Hathersage: 68,642
• Bamford: 34,526
• Hope: 68,820
• Edale: 93,860
• Chinley: 129,000

...so everything stops at Dore and Chinley, maybe Bamford goes down to bi-hourly, maybe Hathersage/ Grindleford get a half hourly service to/from Sheffield in the direction of the peak flow but drop down to hourly at other times. Edale gets a half hourly service on weekend mornings but drops down to bi-hourly at quieter times (given the obvious "walker" demands).

*OR*

...you give up on the idea of a stopper from Sheffield to Manchester. Run a half hourly stopper from Sheffield to Hope, that then sits in the freight sidings west of Hope station before heading back to Yorkshire. Run all Piccadilly - New Mills services to Chinley. Replace the service to Edale with occasional stops in the longer distance services (which occasionally also stop at Hope/Chinley for connections). But, that means that the Sheffield - Hope service doesn't have to match up with the Chinley - Manchester service, so that clears a lot of space in the timetable, making things much more reliable

(or, go crazy, stop the digging up of so much of the Peak District, which would remove the quarry trains from the timetable - some enthusiasts are so emotional about trees cut up for HS2 but perfectly happy to despoil a beautiful part of the English countryside so that we can have some rocks for building projects elsewhere)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the annual passenger numbers are not enough information in this case - you will probably find significantly higher usage of the local stations on a weekend and in school holidays, and the proposal to remove weekend and school holiday Manchester->Peak direct services would be lunacy, and indeed go against the whole basis on which the line was reprieved from Beeching. Even skip-stopping may not suit as some will use it for linear walks.

This is not a typical rural branch line - it's one that is very heavily tourism-oriented in its usage patterns - even more so than something like the Conwy Valley or Windermere branches, where only a couple of specific stations are interesting to tourists.

I would suggest that if the stopper gets in the way then building a platform loop[1] at a suitable intermediate station would be the way to do it, that way other trains can be allowed to pass it, and because of its high leisure usage the delay caused by it sitting in a platform loop for a period of time won't be too dissuasive. Bamford definitely has room at least eastbound (I just looked at a map), I don't know about the other stations.

I'd probably further suggest that there is no sense in looking to increase the passenger frequencies (beyond the stopper being hourly all day), instead lengthen the trains.

[1] Definitely a platform loop. The situation we have at present where some Windermere directs sit in a loop just before the Oxenholme platform for 10 minutes - useless time - is a triumph of doing it on the cheap.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yeah, I was comparing Manchester to London vs East Mids to london

My apologies, I thought you were comparing Manchester to London vs East Mids to London, but I think what you were actually doing is comparing Manchester to London vs Manchester to East Mids (even though that’s not what you say above )

 

[RT4038]

That's worse than any of the existing proposals. You do realise that stoppers also serve quite a few intermediate stations beyond the central Hope Valley stops? Also, we should not be closing train stations unless it is an absolute last resort (it is not).

Having a service run straight up to Hope Valley Central and then needing to change would result in journey times from Derby/East Midlands probably not dissimilar to now. Especially if people from Nottingham have to change twice to do it.

Agree on lengthening trains, sorting junctions at Dore, Resignalling and Electrifying. I think doing that at minimum would decrease journey times and increase reliability.

What can't remain is the status quo of ignoring the issue, which is central government's plan.

Re-opening the Bakewell route is also to serve the intermediate communities. The fact it can both run a stopping service and still provide comparable journey times to the existing options is pretty fantastic in itself.

Stopping services eat capacity, and produce relatively few passengers. Dr. Beeching realised that and proposed accordingly. That is why I propose one station to serve the Hope Valley and bus feeders to this station. The costs of rebuilding the route via Bakewell are really only required to preserve this stopping train, which is out of proportion to the stopping train revenue.

One of the Sheffield-Manchester trains per hour can stop at Dore, and the Nottingham-Liverpool train (one per hour) at Chinley.

I am not proposing that any passengers need to change at Hope Valley Central , aside for someone travelling from Chinley to Dore & Sheffield, which can't be many in the scheme of things.

We can argue about the exact stopping pattern, but the thrust of the proposal is 3 reasonably sized fastish passenger trains per hour through the Hope Valley, leaving plenty of freight capacity and no need to spend gazillions on the Bakewell route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stopping services eat capacity, and produce relatively few passengers.

Do you have any sort of experience of using this line? It is not a typical rural branch line and there is considerably greater use of the stoppers on weekends and school holidays than during the week - sometimes even full and standing on a nice day. Indeed, this is why it, and not Woodhead, was reprieved of Beeching closure - Woodhead had, beyond Hadfield, basically no intermediate demand at all.

Indeed, I can't actually think of another line similar to it - pretty much every rural line has small numbers of people going from the intermediates to the ends plus people going the whole way - this one has quite high leisure demand for the intermediates.

I'm convinced adding platform loops to at least one of the intermediates, so the stopper can be overtaken, is the best plan.

 

[RT4038]

Do you have any sort of experience of using this line? It is not a typical rural branch line and there is considerably greater use of the stoppers on weekends and school holidays than during the week - sometimes even full and standing on a nice day. Indeed, this is why it, and not Woodhead, was reprieved of Beeching closure - Woodhead had, beyond Hadfield, basically no intermediate demand at all.

Indeed, I can't actually think of another line similar to it - pretty much every rural line has small numbers of people going from the intermediates to the ends plus people going the whole way - this one has quite high leisure demand for the intermediates.

I'm convinced adding platform loops to at least one of the intermediates, so the stopper can be overtaken, is the best plan.

Hence the proposal for high capacity eight car trains to serve Hope Valley Central. The feeder buses could be quite busy at weekends and school holidays, when extra spare vehicles (off school runs) could be available anyway.

All depends on how much additional freight capacity is required. Your platform loop could work if maximum freight capacity was not required. If traffic continues to rise, there will be a 'trade off' between a stopping passenger train and the gazillions required for Bakewell (or Woodhead) line reinstatement.

My own experience of travelling on these stoppers has been pretty empty trains (never having been on a weekend or high season). Another possibility (when the freight demand gets to a critical level) would be to develop Hope Valley Central and retain the other valley stations for weekends only, when freight traffic will likely be lighter anyway?

 

[backontrack]

Woodhead >>> Bakewell.

Connecting Sheffield and Manchester more directly is a key development in terms of developing intercity rail in Northern England (the second-most important after HS3), and would decrease congestion on the Hope Valley Line.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Woodhead >>> Bakewell.

Connecting Sheffield and Manchester more directly is a key development in terms of developing intercity rail in Northern England (the second-most important after HS3), and would decrease congestion on the Hope Valley Line.

I was under the impression HS3 would connect Sheffield and Manchester?

 

[backontrack]

I was under the impression HS3 would connect Sheffield and Manchester?

Ah. What I'm thinking of is more Liverpool -> Manchester -> Leeds -> York.

 

[Killingworth]

The Hope Valley Capacity Scheme should finally be given the financial go ahead within the next 8 weeks, so any wish lists should be based on the situation that should exist (if it goes to plan) from end of June 2023.

All talk of passenger services, be it extra trains, changed calling patterns, routes and lengths of trains will have to be deferred until we know how the pandemic's after effects change the market. The 2018/19 and 2019/20 passenger numbers will not be reliable guides. At present Manchester/Sheffield commuting is no higher than 15-20% of previous norms, at best! There's no justification for extra trains or carriages based on current loadings, or those expected in the next 12 months, sadly more the reverse! However, stopping services are doing better, possibly over 50% (leisure into the Peak with so many people not working or working from home). The idea of axing smaller stations could only come from someone unfamiliar with current operations on the line.

Peaks and Dales is largely about freight. The Hope Valley scheme has taken so long to get to where it is that the rise in the stone traffic from the Buxton quarries hadn't been fully taken into account. The justification primarily featured the cement traffic, yet today a lot more stone trains use the Valley than those carrying cement.

To resolve that we're talking about MEMRAP - the Peaks and Dales line

We're about to repeat the content of another thread. The MEMRAP case has only recently been debated in: Monsal Trail: Potential plan to turn viaduct into railway opposed

 

[Dr Hoo]

Hence the proposal for high capacity eight car trains to serve Hope Valley Central. The feeder buses could be quite busy at weekends and school holidays, when extra spare vehicles (off school runs) could be available anyway.

It would be really helpful if you could flesh out what you mean by Hope Valley Central. The intermediate stations are all very different in terms of their immediate access and surroundings and also the way in which they already act as railheads for settlements a little further away (such as Calver to Grindleford or Tideswell and Castleton to Hope).

All of the stations have their own challenges in terms of position, requiring feeder buses to divert into minor roads, very limited space for car parking or a 'transport interchange', poor access for those of impaired mobility and so on.

The line provides a key element of life opportunity in terms of young people in the Hope Valley being able to access colleges in Manchester and Sheffield. These people generally don't have their own cars. Any need to 'travel backwards' (such as a bus from Hathersage to (say) Hope simple to access a train back into Sheffield) just isn't going to happen.

 

[Killingworth]

It would be really helpful if you could flesh out what you mean by Hope Valley Central. The intermediate stations are all very different in terms of their immediate access and surroundings and also the way in which they already act as railheads for settlements a little further away (such as Calver to Grindleford or Tideswell and Castleton to Hope).

All of the stations have their own challenges in terms of position, requiring feeder buses to divert into minor roads, very limited space for car parking or a 'transport interchange', poor access for those of impaired mobility and so on.

The line provides a key element of life opportunity in terms of young people in the Hope Valley being able to access colleges in Manchester and Sheffield. These people generally don't have their own cars. Any need to 'travel backwards' (such as a bus from Hathersage to (say) Hope simple to access a train back into Sheffield) just isn't going to happen.

Hope is the station that local residents and tourists would find most acceptable if that were the vote. Reducing stops would be very unwelcome.

However this thread is about an alternative route for freight traffic and that can only be the MEMRAP scheme - or finding another way to the West to avoid having to go north to Guide Bridge before running south. That's a worse bottleneck than the Hope Valley.

Those unfamiliar with the route should read the Hope Valley Rail User Group's very full and well researched report from 2012; IMPROVING THE RAIL SERVICE IN THE HOPE VALLEY

Since that was compiled passenger numbers have risen substantially (as they have at Dore and Chinley) and were continuing to do so until March 2020! Bear in mind that the latest passenger numbers available are for 2018/19. Until that year it was basically a 2 hourly service and had only just got established as hourly. Those figures were influenced by industrial action and cancellations on Saturdays and Sundays in particular, the busiest two days of the week for leisure users in the Peak District. Revenue collection has been notoriously weak, apart from at Piccadilly, so ticket sales are under counting actual passenger numbers, the margin generally accepted to be by at least 10%.

Unfortunately the pandemic and its aftermath will invalidate all previous capacity demand forecasts. In 2 years time we'll have a better idea of how it's going but longer and more frequent passenger trains may not be justified for rather longer.

 

[Jozhua]

Stopping services eat capacity, and produce relatively few passengers. Dr. Beeching realised that and proposed accordingly. That is why I propose one station to serve the Hope Valley and bus feeders to this station. The costs of rebuilding the route via Bakewell are really only required to preserve this stopping train, which is out of proportion to the stopping train revenue.

One of the Sheffield-Manchester trains per hour can stop at Dore, and the Nottingham-Liverpool train (one per hour) at Chinley.

I am not proposing that any passengers need to change at Hope Valley Central , aside for someone travelling from Chinley to Dore & Sheffield, which can't be many in the scheme of things.

We can argue about the exact stopping pattern, but the thrust of the proposal is 3 reasonably sized fastish passenger trains per hour through the Hope Valley, leaving plenty of freight capacity and no need to spend gazillions on the Bakewell route.

Dr Beeching didn't realise those rural/suburban lines act as feeders for the intercity network and that cutting them would result in less riders on that.

Do you have any sort of experience of using this line? It is not a typical rural branch line and there is considerably greater use of the stoppers on weekends and school holidays than during the week - sometimes even full and standing on a nice day. Indeed, this is why it, and not Woodhead, was reprieved of Beeching closure - Woodhead had, beyond Hadfield, basically no intermediate demand at all.

Indeed, I can't actually think of another line similar to it - pretty much every rural line has small numbers of people going from the intermediates to the ends plus people going the whole way - this one has quite high leisure demand for the intermediates.

I'm convinced adding platform loops to at least one of the intermediates, so the stopper can be overtaken, is the best plan.

Absolutely agree, a passing loop is the most obvious solution to this issue. Doesn't even have to be in a station, an extra five minutes on the journey time waiting in a loop would still be significantly better than the bus proposal, and more cost effective too.

Woodhead >>> Bakewell.

Connecting Sheffield and Manchester more directly is a key development in terms of developing intercity rail in Northern England (the second-most important after HS3), and would decrease congestion on the Hope Valley Line.

Woodhead is no good, the alignment is windy and barely faster than Hope. At least for intercity stuff.

The best permanent solution is to just bore a massive electrified tunnel under the peaks. Once you cost the other solutions out, it would probably make a decent amount of sense. I think we can maybe squeeze a bit more out of Hope Valley, especially with longer trains. Perhaps some Midlands/Manchester journeys will be faster just travelling down to Birmingham and then back up to Manchester on HS2.

I was under the impression HS3 would connect Sheffield and Manchester?

No, Manchester - Leeds

It would be really helpful if you could flesh out what you mean by Hope Valley Central. The intermediate stations are all very different in terms of their immediate access and surroundings and also the way in which they already act as railheads for settlements a little further away (such as Calver to Grindleford or Tideswell and Castleton to Hope).

All of the stations have their own challenges in terms of position, requiring feeder buses to divert into minor roads, very limited space for car parking or a 'transport interchange', poor access for those of impaired mobility and so on.

The line provides a key element of life opportunity in terms of young people in the Hope Valley being able to access colleges in Manchester and Sheffield. These people generally don't have their own cars. Any need to 'travel backwards' (such as a bus from Hathersage to (say) Hope simple to access a train back into Sheffield) just isn't going to happen.

I completely agree. As one of the young people from a rural community who relied on a train to acess jobs and opportunities, I will absolutely defend rural rail to the grave. It's the only thing that holds some rural communities together and without it, they would fall apart.

 

[Killingworth]

In an ideal world, without a pandemic and with billions to spend on railways (rather than ensuring we have an NHS and social care system with more capacity to cope better with emergencies) I'm sure a new electrified tunnel between Sheffield and Manchester could cut the journey time to under 25 minutes and allow the existing line to be used for freight and stopping services. It would be a total game changer to bring Yorks and Lancs so close together and I'm in favour. I doubt I'll live long enough to see that idea being seriously considered, certainly not to see it built and operational.

Greater Manchester’s South East Rail Corridor Study in January 2020 touched on the Hope Valley services suggesting the 4th should go via Marple but stop only at Chinley and Dore. I'd agree with that but would suggest another stop at Hope as the area hub for the valley.

In 3 years time there'll be capacity in the Bamford loop for a slow stopping train to be overtaken. Probably not timetabled, but possible. If they'd taken up the option to make Dore station bi-directional it would have offered further possibilities. (I'd have gone for an overtaking loop at Hope, bi-directional central track through the station, if it were really needed.)

However we are in the middle of a pandemic and the core commuter market is drying up. It will not come back as it was. We'd be able to cope with 3 x 3 carriage trains an hour on current loadings if it weren't for distancing. We can't justify more passenger trains at present.

We need to see how loadings improve during 2021/22 and how the construction works (almost certain to start in 2022) actually help during 2024. By then we may have a better idea where any available cash can be best spent.

I sense the completed scheme will be adequate to cope with the traffic in 2023/4 so any alternative route is unlikely to be cost justified. Any funds will need to be focused on higher priorities elsewhere. Like Manchester, Sheffield, and........enter your nomination here!

 

[Bald Rick]

Dr Beeching didn't realise those rural/suburban lines act as feeders for the intercity network and that cutting them would result in less riders on that.

He understood that perfectly well.

 

[D365]

He understood that perfectly well.

Closure by stealth, but that's another story...

 

[Jozhua]

In an ideal world, without a pandemic and with billions to spend on railways (rather than ensuring we have an NHS and social care system with more capacity to cope better with emergencies) I'm sure a new electrified tunnel between Sheffield and Manchester could cut the journey time to under 25 minutes and allow the existing line to be used for freight and stopping services. It would be a total game changer to bring Yorks and Lancs so close together and I'm in favour. I doubt I'll live long enough to see that idea being seriously considered, certainly not to see it built and operational.

Greater Manchester’s South East Rail Corridor Study in January 2020 touched on the Hope Valley services suggesting the 4th should go via Marple but stop only at Chinley and Dore. I'd agree with that but would suggest another stop at Hope as the area hub for the valley.

In 3 years time there'll be capacity in the Bamford loop for a slow stopping train to be overtaken. Probably not timetabled, but possible. If they'd taken up the option to make Dore station bi-directional it would have offered further possibilities. (I'd have gone for an overtaking loop at Hope, bi-directional central track through the station, if it were really needed.)

However we are in the middle of a pandemic and the core commuter market is drying up. It will not come back as it was. We'd be able to cope with 3 x 3 carriage trains an hour on current loadings if it weren't for distancing. We can't justify more passenger trains at present.

We need to see how loadings improve during 2021/22 and how the construction works (almost certain to start in 2022) actually help during 2024. By then we may have a better idea where any available cash can be best spent.

I sense the completed scheme will be adequate to cope with the traffic in 2023/4 so any alternative route is unlikely to be cost justified. Any funds will need to be focused on higher priorities elsewhere. Like Manchester, Sheffield, and........enter your nomination here!

We are in a pandemic now, but we are also in a climate emergency, so spending money on better sustainable transportation is very important, for both freight and passengers!

Ultimately spending capital on railways is fine, it's not coming out of the same pot of money as the NHS, the only thing we need to worry about is engineering capacity, and increasing the number of well paid engineering jobs would almost certainly help the economy recover short term and long term.

We can take out loans now borrowed off future growth, which better railways will help to secure. So as long as the projects are sensible, and we're not building a railway to the moon, money isn't too much of an issue!

I suspect passengers will not only return, but in massive numbers. Leasure travel is going to absolutely boom, as will events, in person meetings, etc. Working habits will change, but it won't necessarily affect how much travel, just where and when.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

He understood that perfectly well.

Exactly; and he also understood that the losses on most branch lines were so high that British Railways' finances would be better by losing both the branch line deficits and whatever contribution* they made to InterCity routes.

* In almost all cases the through fares paid at branch line stations were not enough to finance the branch line let alone also contribute to the main lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

We are in a pandemic now, but we are also in a climate emergency, so spending money on better sustainable transportation is very important, for both freight and passengers!

Ultimately spending capital on railways is fine, it's not coming out of the same pot of money as the NHS, the only thing we need to worry about is engineering capacity, and increasing the number of well paid engineering jobs would almost certainly help the economy recover short term and long term.

We can take out loans now borrowed off future growth, which better railways will help to secure. So as long as the projects are sensible, and we're not building a railway to the moon, money isn't too much of an issue!

I suspect passengers will not only return, but in massive numbers. Leasure travel is going to absolutely boom, as will events, in person meetings, etc. Working habits will change, but it won't necessarily affect how much travel, just where and when.

I’m sorry but this is a rather hopeful assessment at best.

 

[Killingworth]

We are in a pandemic now, but we are also in a climate emergency, so spending money on better sustainable transportation is very important, for both freight and passengers!

Ultimately spending capital on railways is fine, it's not coming out of the same pot of money as the NHS, the only thing we need to worry about is engineering capacity, and increasing the number of well paid engineering jobs would almost certainly help the economy recover short term and long term.

We can take out loans now borrowed off future growth, which better railways will help to secure. So as long as the projects are sensible, and we're not building a railway to the moon, money isn't too much of an issue!

I suspect passengers will not only return, but in massive numbers. Leasure travel is going to absolutely boom, as will events, in person meetings, etc. Working habits will change, but it won't necessarily affect how much travel, just where and when.

I admire your optimism. I wouldn't base a business decision on it. There's a massive shift in society and it will take a decade before we can be certain how it will settle down.

Office based commuters were the bread and butter of many rail routes. They're now used to routinely working from home. IT and home comforts have been adapted to cope. Thanks to poor reliability on the Hope Valley line most regular users had back up plans to cover short form overcrowding, cancellations and events like the total block for the Whaley Bridge dam scare. Work from home Friday had become a regular feature - TPE 3 cars instead of 6 - chicken or egg? Once things open up they won't all return to 5 day a week travel.

In the meantime we'll see office leases not being renewed and more use of remote learning. (I know of one company who closed their offices at the end of July and all now work from home.) It's far too early to predict how it will end up but the present situation may bring about more changes in society than WW1 and WW2. In a year's time we'll have a better idea, in 2 years better still. Carry on with work in the pipeline, yes for most, but many/most new projects can't be realistically appraised.

In the meantime we don't have a pressing need for an alternative route for freight trains to avoid the congested Hope Valley because after 2023 the major congestion will be knocking on from Manchester and Sheffield. Let's prove that first.