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.

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.


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.