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

[Meerkat]

I can imagine that any serious proposals on this would start a near civil war between those wanting the railway and those wanting to protect the national park.
Hell of a lot of trees will need to come down and there would probably be some really ugly embankment stabilisation works in the prettiest bits.

 

[The Planner]

One could re-open the Glazebrook to Skelton Junction line to enable freight traffic from Trafford Park to get to Chinley (with a reversal at Glazebrook) now that the South District line from Throstle Nest junction has been converted to Metrolink, but this is merely hypothetical.

Again, a massive undertaking that doesn't really provide any benefits, especially if you are chucking in a run round at Glazebrook, as well as building the east exit out of Trafford Park (again needing another run round) plus the single line from Hazel Grove to Northenden. Its going to increase the journey time more than anything as well as removing any possibility of electric hauled freight that runs via the dog leg of London.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But the problem is that it takes trains away from where the people are (Sheffield etc) and sends them through empty moorland.
Severing direct train from beyond Nottingham to Sheffield is not going to go down well at all with the public.

The High Peak and Derbyshire Dales areas still have a couple of hundred thousand people, plus you'd be looking at increased capacity through Sheffield station for more important local destinations by removing the reversal.

12 car trains could operate there and actually make a difference, instead of a direct Derby route through fields.

Unfortunately not possible without a new route from Hadfield onwards into Manchester (would be ridiculously expensive on the Hadfield to Mottram and Denton to Manchester city centre parts at least).

There's a fair amount of local traffic that you have to work around, the Piccadilly throat would struggle even more unless you spent more reopening adjacent Mayfield station, and Sheffield Victoria would probably end up as your terminus (not great for interchange given the walk to the current Sheffield Midland central station).

The only viable way would be for the Denton to Stockbridge section to be built as part of a Pennine base motorway and rail tunnel scheme (viaduct from Denton to Mottram), but that would be an absurd amount of money.

 

[HSTEd]

The High Peak and Derbyshire Dales areas still have a couple of hundred thousand people, plus you'd be looking at increased capacity through Sheffield station for more important local destinations by removing the reversal.

The High Peak and Derbyshire Dales are rather large areas though, and they have quite a few railway lines in them as it is!
After all the High Peak District stretches all the way up to Glossop/Hadfield, which I suspect is where a lot of the population is concentrated.

It would be a long slow drag through to Buxton, then through essentially empty Moorland to reach Matlock.

I don't think you'd save much capacity in Sheffield at all, because you'd still need fast trains heading south out of Sheffield to both Manchester and Nottingham.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The High Peak and Derbyshire Dales areas still have a couple of hundred thousand people, plus you'd be looking at increased capacity through Sheffield station for more important local destinations by removing the reversal.

More like 165,000 and the vast majority of whom live nowhere near the Monsal Dale line, e.g. in Glossop or Ashbourne. The fact that Bakewell is the largest town in the National Park, with a population of around 4,000 says it all.

The former stations are not well situated in relation to the places that they purported to serve, e.g. Millers Dale for Tideswell. Even the Bakewell site is on the edge of the town, up a hill that is effectively a dead end and not realistically accessible by buses or able to have significant parking provision.

 

[HSTEd]

that would make an excellent railhead.

Wouldn't cost a billion pounds or take a decade to build either!

Visual impact would be greater than the railway, but actual impact on the park would be minimal with helicopter assisted construction.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The High Peak and Derbyshire Dales are rather large areas though, and they have quite a few railway lines in them as it is!
After all the High Peak District stretches all the way up to Glossop/Hadfield, which I suspect is where a lot of the population is concentrated.

It would be a long slow drag through to Buxton, then through essentially empty Moorland to reach Matlock.

I don't think you'd save much capacity in Sheffield at all, because you'd still need fast trains heading south out of Sheffield to both Manchester and Nottingham.

Glossop/Hadfield is less than half; the Chapel ELF + New Mills + Whaley + Buxton cluster contribute a larger chunk.

The Buxton section doesn't have to be slow - it's slow because of the current stopping pattern more than anything.
Empty moorland it would not be - you have Ashford in the Water, Bakewell and Darley Dale along the route.

The point is the Nottingham train could come from somewhere else at Sheffield (e.g. Barnsley), while you could have another Manchester fast to complement the TPE in place of the EMR.

More like 165,000 and the vast majority of whom live nowhere near the Monsal Dale line, e.g. in Glossop or Ashbourne. The fact that Bakewell is the largest town in the National Park, with a population of around 4,000 says it all.

The former stations are not well situated in relation to the places that they purported to serve, e.g. Millers Dale for Tideswell. Even the Bakewell site is on the edge of the town, up a hill that is effectively a dead end and not realistically accessible by buses or able to have significant parking provision.

If you look at a map of the PDNP, you'll realise that most of the sizeable towns are deliberately excluded because of industry mainly.
Glossop-Hadfield isn't that big - it's around 30k, while the rest live further south closer to Buxton.

The stations may be poorly sited - but that is not neccesarily a barrier to use, look at the station in Chapel ELF.
A long walk uphill from the town centre and most of the housing, no buses serve it, and yet it's relatively well patronised.

 

[duffield]

This potential re-opening is trotted out in the local media every 5-10 years. I'll predict confidently that it will make exactly as much progress this time as it did on each previous occasion.

 

[dosxuk]

plus you'd be looking at increased capacity through Sheffield station for more important local destinations by removing the reversal.

The point is the Nottingham train could come from somewhere else at Sheffield (e.g. Barnsley), while you could have another Manchester fast to complement the TPE in place of the EMR.

So the increased capacity gets eaten up straight away - with more paths needed through the more congested northern end of Sheffield station to boot.

It makes no sense to replace the call at Sheffield (~600k pop) with a call at Bakewell (~3k pop).

 

[YorksLad12]

On the one hand... tosh.
On the other hand... newly-elected Labour metro Mayor.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Slightly off topic but related. I was chatting to someone probably 5 or so years ago who said this line was definitely reopening very soon because he had been talking to a volunteer at Peak Rail who said it was being rebuilt for stone trains for the construction of HS2. I pointed out there was absolutely no chance of that happening but he was adamant it was true and would be reopening very soon. A volunteer at Peak Rail told him so it must be true.

I suppose it just goes to show some people believe everything they are told and some people tell others absolute nonsense.

 

[The Planner]

Slightly off topic but related. I was chatting to someone probably 5 or so years ago who said this line was definitely reopening very soon because he had been talking to a volunteer at Peak Rail who said it was being rebuilt for stone trains for the construction of HS2. I pointed out there was absolutely no chance of that happening but he was adamant it was true and would be reopening very soon. A volunteer at Peak Rail told him so it must be true.

I suppose it just goes to show some people believe everything they are told and some people tell others absolute nonsense.

And those trains will also stop in the next couple of years.

 

[AlastairFraser]

So the increased capacity gets eaten up straight away - with more paths needed through the more congested northern end of Sheffield station to boot.

It makes no sense to replace the call at Sheffield (~600k pop) with a call at Bakewell (~3k pop).

It does - it means more capacity on the Liverpool to Norwich (because it's not rammed with Sheffield passengers) and more capacity Manchester to Sheffield (because of the extra service).

 

[furnessvale]

What strategic need? Where has Network Rail ever said it needs reopening as part of a route utilisation study or route study?

I am probably mistaken, but I have a distant memory of a strategic freight network document, possibly by Railtrack, which envisaged reopening Matlock to Chinley for freight.

Blowed if I can locate a copy.

 

[The Planner]

It does - it means more capacity on the Liverpool to Norwich (because it's not rammed with Sheffield passengers) and more capacity Manchester to Sheffield (because of the extra service).

Or make the Liverpool Norwich trains longer and not spend a billion on the new railway.

I am probably mistaken, but I have a distant memory of a strategic freight network document, possibly by Railtrack, which envisaged reopening Matlock to Chinley for freight.

Blowed if I can locate a copy.

Which sort of says a lot that if a document produced the best part of 22-25 years ago hasn't made a dent.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Or make the Liverpool Norwich trains longer and not spend a billion on the new railway.

Without most of the benefits (including taking a lot of cars out of a national park with a lot of visitors).

 

[daodao]

Without most of the benefits (including taking a lot of cars out of a national park with a lot of visitors).

Tourism does not make a case for an expensive new railway, as the traffic generated is typically seasonal and unpredictable, and the people who might use it for this purpose are not local to the area and not making regular journeys to it. The justification for any new transport facility within a national park needs to be based on the requirements of the local population and (for freight) local industrial activity; it is better for through traffic to use an alternative route. As national parks tend to have a low scattered population and relatively little industry, as previous comments on this thread have mentioned, any cases for new transport facilities are inherently weak.

 

[Killingworth]

Without most of the benefits (including taking a lot of cars out of a national park with a lot of visitors).

If you think a rail link will take a lot of cars out of the Peak District the evidence at Matlock and the Hope Valley is rather against it. Only Edale might offer some suport. Even with an hourly service the car park there is full of incoming tourists, not local people travelling out. At Hope car parking is £1 Monday-Friday, £3 weekends and Bank Holidays for that reason.

The car starts from home and goes to the village, path end, hill, pub, whatever you want to visit when you want to go, offers flexibilty to change and come back at any time.

Using a train requires a different mindset. There aren't enough people willing to do that planning to justify building incredibly expensive new lines.

 

[dosxuk]

Without most of the benefits (including taking a lot of cars out of a national park with a lot of visitors).

The problem is there don't seem to be many benefits of redirecting this service, other than to run along a route few people want to travel.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh please, who else has that remit? Some people expecting someone else to sign up for over a billion pounds worth of infrastructure becuase they have spoken to the DfT and didnt even get anywhere with a restoring your railway bid?

Come now, you know very well that Network Rail has no such remit. Infact, it's budget limitations act as a disincentive for it to propose new routes, this is why political intervention is always required to open new routes.

Does that level of demand exist for travel between Sheffield and Manchester? If so, why has no one considered running such longer trains between Sheffield and Manchester on the Hope Valley route?

I wonder what length trains the backers of any scheme to run direct trains from Derby through the Peak District to Manchester would be envisaging.

Well, we've had demand for much longer trains on the Trans-Pennine routes for many years unfulfilled. It's only recently we've got to five and six carrisges.

ISTR this was discussed before and they envisaged 'high speed' limited stop longer distance services with shorter distance stoppers plus freight on a 2 track railway. All of which ignores the expertise of those on this board such as @The Planner who have pointed out more times than I care to count that such a mix is impossible to path effectively and where such a mix occurs currently on the national network it's a nightmare and causes capacity issues and bottlenecks.

But the crayonista response seems to be "oh but you can work around that" - with what, I'm not sure - presumably fairy dust and magic mushrooms because facts, common sense and logic don't seem to be enough.

And yet, as has been pointed out, there are hundreds of double track stretches around the UK that accommodate just such traffic mixes every day. The Trans Pennine Route through Huddersfield will contain long double track sections, yet that is currently being upgraded to add freight paths to the mix. All forgotten by the same old Beeching acolytes.

If you think a rail link will take a lot of cars out of the Peak District the evidence at Matlock and the Hope Valley is rather against it. Only Edale might offer some suport. Even with an hourly service the car park there is full of incoming tourists, not local people travelling out. At Hope car parking is £1 Monday-Friday, £3 weekends and Bank Holidays for that reason.

The car starts from home and goes to the village, path end, hill, pub, whatever you want to visit when you want to go, offers flexibilty to change and come back at any time.

Using a train requires a different mindset. There aren't enough people willing to do that planning to justify building incredibly expensive new lines.

You'll know from your experience that the Hope valley stoppers disgorge hundreds of visitors to the rural stations. The settlements around the Ambergate - Chinley main line would be even more of a pull, were the trains there.

Which sort of says a lot that if a document produced the best part of 22-25 years ago hasn't made a dent.

Yes, it says a lot about how the country is governed.

 

[Nottingham59]

This satellite image of England at night shows where the population is.

There there are plenty of other corridors (Manchester-Leeds / Manchester-Sheffield) that need investment in rail capacity more than Manchester-Derby.

Source https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/78000/78674/london_lights_2012087_lrg.jpg

 

[daodao]

You'll know from your experience that the Hope valley stoppers disgorge hundreds of visitors to the rural stations. The settlements around the Ambergate - Chinley main line would be even more of a pull, were the trains there.

Occasional visitors don't make a business case for re-opening a railway line. What matters is the size of the local population who could use the train regularly.

 

[yorksrob]

Occasional visitors don't make a business case for re-opening a railway line. What matters is the size of the local population who could use the train regularly.

And as you can see from the picture above, there are actually plenty of light dots between Derby and Manchester.

I should imagine that settlements such as Matlock, Bakewell, Chapel en le Frith and Buxton will generate more originating traffic. (I'm aware three of those already have train services, however two of them don't have a service to the South and one doesn't to the north, so there's a lot of potential journeys to be made.

 

[daodao]

And as you can see from the picture above, there are actually plenty of light dots between Derby and Manchester.

I should imagine that settlements such as Matlock, Bakewell, Chapel en le Frith and Buxton will generate more originating traffic. (I'm aware three of those already have train services, however two of them don't have a service to the South and one doesn't to the north, so there's a lot of potential journeys to be made.

What matters with respect to potential demand for rail services is economic geography. Buxton and the rest of the High Peak look north-west for services not provided locally, to Greater Manchester/Eastern Cheshire. Matlock and places in the Derwent Valley look towards Derby. There is much less demand for travel between Greater Manchester/High Peak District/Buxton and Bakewell/Matlock/Derby, and the existing Trans-Peak bus service caters adequately for this limited need.

 

[yorksrob]

What matters with respect to potential demand for rail services is economic geography. Buxton and the rest of the High Peak look north-west for services not provided locally, to Greater Manchester/Eastern Cheshire. Matlock and places in the Derwent Valley look towards Derby. There is much less demand for travel between Greater Manchester/High Peak District/Buxton and Bakewell/Matlock/Derby, and the existing Trans-Peak bus service caters adequately for this limited need.

I've heard it said on this forum before that Mancunians look to the peak district for their leisure, rather than the Yorkshire Dales etc. This being the case, better penetration will prove very popular. Places like Matlock and Buxton are economically well heeled as well. Plenty of people from Matlock will be drawn to the cultural and commercial delights of Manchester, and I'm sure Buxtonians will make use of more direct connections to London.

 

[daodao]

I've heard it said on this forum before that Mancunians look to the peak district for their leisure, rather than the Yorkshire Dales etc. This being the case, better penetration will prove very popular. Places like Matlock and Buxton are economically well heeled as well. Plenty of people from Matlock will be drawn to the cultural and commercial delights of Manchester, and I'm sure Buxtonians will make use of more direct connections to London.

Evidence please. @The Planner and others have provided more objective comments on this thread.

As I have already stated, tourism doesn't make a business case for re-opening a railway line. Relatively few people in Matlock travel to Manchester. Buxton to London via Derby won't be quicker than via Stockport/Macclesfield.

 

[Killingworth]

You'll know from your experience that the Hope valley stoppers disgorge hundreds of visitors to the rural stations. The settlements around the Ambergate - Chinley main line would be even more of a pull, were the trains there.

Would that it were so all day, all year round and in all weathers. Along the Hope Valley line the average number of passengers boarding each train at Edale is just over 10, heavily weighted towards daytime summer sunny, weekends. All the others are lower and from memory Bamford may not be as high as 5 (Dore is also less than 11).

I'd certainly agree that the 10.14 out of Sheffield on a Saturday morning is often crush loaded, 2 cars only last Saturday leaving some on the platform at Dore, those aboard like sardines. 4 cars needed, but the fare income generated from the few trains like that is negated by those carrying next to nobody on other days and times.

As a regular user I've seen both extremes. From any managerial viewpoint you have to consider both. A lot of people reporting being crushed on a few trains. A lot more trains carrying masses of fresh air with few to see it.

The case for hourly Hope Valley stoppers may rely heavily on end to end Sheffield - Manchester users attracted by Northern's lower fares thus supporting Peak District walkers! But we're off on a side track on that.

Running trains on the existing lines is heavily subsidised so building new lines at great expense to need yet more support is unlikely to happen.

 

[The Planner]

Come now, you know very well that Network Rail has no such remit. Infact, it's budget limitations act as a disincentive for it to propose new routes, this is why political intervention is always required to open new routes.

It has EXACTLY that remit. Who do you think is looking at the RYR and the plucked from the sky schemes that have come from HS2 cancellation? Who do you think writes the route studies with options for funders to take forward?

A 15 second Google search would have got you this;

Long-term planning - Network Rail

We’re responsible for understanding and shaping what the future of Britain’s railway looks like through delivery of long-term plans. This work is done by dedicated ‘Strategic Network Planning teams’. Their job is to understand; Strategic Network Planning work at a local level, with our regions...

www.networkrail.co.uk

It requires political intervention as who do you think signs off on an enhancement budget?

And yet, as has been pointed out, there are hundreds of double track stretches around the UK that accommodate just such traffic mixes every day.

With significant constraints, why do you think the railway north of Preston is flighted?

The Trans Pennine Route through Huddersfield will contain long double track sections, yet that is currently being upgraded to add freight paths to the mix. All forgotten by the same old Beeching acolytes.

1tph extra freight at best.

 

[yorksrob]

Evidence please. @The Planner and others have provided more objective comments on this thread.

As I have already stated, tourism doesn't make a business case for re-opening a railway line. Relatively few people in Matlock travel to Manchester. Buxton to London via Derby won't be quicker than via Stockport/Macclesfield.

People don't make those journeys because they're not easy to make. Tourism might not a business case make, however as we've seen with Okehampton, where you have tourism combined with settlements with inadequate public transport, new services can be well used.

Would that it were so all day, all year round and in all weathers. Along the Hope Valley line the average number of passengers boarding each train at Edale is just over 10, heavily weighted towards daytime summer sunny, weekends. All the others are lower and from memory Bamford may not be as high as 5 (Dore is also less than 11).

I'd certainly agree that the 10.14 out of Sheffield on a Saturday morning is often crush loaded, 2 cars only last Saturday leaving some on the platform at Dore, those aboard like sardines. 4 cars needed, but the fare income generated from the few trains like that is negated by those carrying next to nobody on other days and times.

As a regular user I've seen both extremes. From any managerial viewpoint you have to consider both. A lot of people reporting being crushed on a few trains. A lot more trains carrying masses of fresh air with few to see it.

The case for hourly Hope Valley stoppers may rely heavily on end to end Sheffield - Manchester users attracted by Northern's lower fares thus supporting Peak District walkers! But we're off on a side track on that.

Running trains on the existing lines is heavily subsidised so building new lines at great expense to need yet more support is unlikely to happen.

Fortunately as I've mentioned, the route through Bakewell does better at having reasonably sized urban areas than the Hope valley, so one would expect local traffic to be less weather oriented.

It has EXACTLY that remit. Who do you think is looking at the RYR and the plucked from the sky schemes that have come from HS2 cancellation? Who do you think writes the route studies with options for funders to take forward?

A 15 second Google search would have got you this;

Long-term planning - Network Rail

We’re responsible for understanding and shaping what the future of Britain’s railway looks like through delivery of long-term plans. This work is done by dedicated ‘Strategic Network Planning teams’. Their job is to understand; Strategic Network Planning work at a local level, with our regions...

www.networkrail.co.uk

It requires political intervention as who do you think signs off on an enhancement budget?


With significant constraints, why do you think the railway north of Preston is flighted?

1tph extra freight at best.

And who asked NR to pick those schemes out of the sky ?

I acknowledge the planning apparatus you've linked to, but this is always going to be heavily geared towards the existing network.

Who's even producing the reports and studies for this proposal ? It's MEMRAP and local stakeholders, not NR.

And yes, we know that mixed traffic railways require traffic planning - no one has suggested otherwise. It's not as though this service will be trying to replicate the WCML.

 

[The Planner]

And who asked NR to pick those schemes out of the sky ?

Rishi did.

I acknowledge the planning apparatus you've linked to, but this is always going to be heavily geared towards the existing network.

Who's even producing the reports and studies for this proposal ? It's MEMRAP and local stakeholders, not NR.

Maybe because NR doesn't see it as a scheme worth taking forward as it isn't considered an issue? I would hardly call the MEMRAP study getting the the point of a strategic outline business case. File it under SELRAP etc etc. As for the existing network, who do you think were integral to East West, Ordsall Chord, Okehampton etc.

And yes, we know that mixed traffic railways require traffic planning - no one has suggested otherwise. It's not as though this service will be trying to replicate the WCML.

So if the railway north of Preston has these constraints on one of the busiest railways in the country, with currently no resolution, why would we spend a billion pounds on reopening something that doesn't have a problem to solve?