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

[Killingworth]

Extending the stopper from New Mills Central, running it as a 6 car (at least) as an all stopper the whole way to Sheffield, and making the other one semi fast.

But first the landslip near New Mills needs fixing, currently restricting the route to single track until tha autumn. Certaily a good idea to increase seating capacity city to city and no neef to stop 6 car trains (over 6 is a bit too far fetched) at all 4 car platforms on the route. Both could selectively skip stops but we're off on a tangent with this.

 

[willgreen]

As I've explained before, you only have to look at the geography of the area to see that it has more potential for passenger traffic than the intermediate stations on the Hope Valley. There is simply more there.

The Hope Valley Line already exists. Stop avoiding the point - what is the purpose of reopening this line?

 

[yorksrob]

The Hope Valley Line already exists. Stop avoiding the point - what is the purpose of reopening this line?

To improve the local public transport network and provide more capacity and resilience to the wider railway system.

Fairly obvious I'd have thought.

 

[willgreen]

To improve the local public transport network and provide more capacity and resilience to the wider railway system.

Fairly obvious I'd have thought.

But you’ve provided no evidence that either of these things would actually happen - and no evidence that such vague aims would be worth the enormous price tag and damage to major local tourist attractions.

Why is it that you insist that lines with limited modern purpose should be reopened, but show minimal interest in ongoing reopenings - such as EWR?

 

[furnessvale]

As someone who lives nearby and witnesses the millions of tonnes of stone on rail making a pointless jouney north to locations such as East Manchester, before eventually turning south to head to London, not to mention the millions of tonnes more that never sees rail. but heads south by road, thanks to the extra cost of rail,, it never ceases to amaze me just how much anti feeling is raised every time this topic surfaces, which is often.

And all this is before we even consider the 13 million tourists to the Peak per annum, The potential for a direct link between the north west and east midlands, the potential for transport for the North to develop a proper link across the Pennines using a relieved Hope Valley.

Never mind, lets all sqabble amongst ourselves while plans for more cross Pennine motorways quietly proceed.

 

[The Planner]

Extending the stopper from New Mills Central, running it as a 6 car (at least) as an all stopper the whole way to Sheffield, and making the other one semi fast.

So more stock then, not just a railway to reopen as @Neptune has said.

Never mind, lets all sqabble amongst ourselves while plans for more cross Pennine motorways quietly proceed.

What plans?

 

[furnessvale]

What plans?

Without looking for more detail, the attached study has gone further into road expansion than any study into rail.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f3af4ed915d74e33f5237/trans-pennine-summary.pdf

I have also seen studies by Greater Manchester into a Woodhead base road tunnel. Again. more than anyone seems prepared to even consider rail options.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

To improve the local public transport network and provide more capacity and resilience to the wider railway system.

Fairly obvious I'd have thought.

We've had threads in the past (notably about C*rm*rth*n-Ab*r*stw*th) debating whether traditional cost/benefit analysis via the DfT's TAG suite is the best way of assessing a railway reopening.

For better or worse, though, it is the system currently in use. It's vanishingly unlikely, I'm afraid, that reopening through the Peak would get anything near a convincing BCR. The immediate population is low. You could speed up East Midlands–North West journeys at a fraction of the cost by adding an extra Hope Valley service via Dore South Curve (again, extensively rehearsed in previous threads). The freight gets moved as it is and DfT doesn't really care about freight anyway. In this context the Monsal Trail is a bit of a red herring - reopening the railway wouldn't pass muster in its own right, walk/cycle route considerations aside.

In many ways this is a shame. The "social railway" has beneficial effects that aren't captured in a bare BCR figure. But until that system is changed, the Matlock–Buxton railway isn't reopening.

 

[The Planner]

Without looking for more detail, the attached study has gone further into road expansion than any study into rail.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f3af4ed915d74e33f5237/trans-pennine-summary.pdf

I have also seen studies by Greater Manchester into a Woodhead base road tunnel. Again. more than anyone seems prepared to even consider rail options.

So a 10 year old study with no commitments, effectively the same as this proposal then.

 

[Dr Hoo]

As someone who lives nearby and witnesses the millions of tonnes of stone on rail making a pointless jouney north to locations such as East Manchester, before eventually turning south to head to London, not to mention the millions of tonnes more that never sees rail. but heads south by road, thanks to the extra cost of rail,, it never ceases to amaze me just how much anti feeling is raised every time this topic surfaces, which is often.

From looking at RTT it is far from clear that ‘millions of tonnes’ of stone go via East Manchester before heading south.

In normal circumstances such traffic will run via Dore South Curve or via Altrincham and Northwich. (I know that during cyclical maintenance, typically one week in six, these routes may be closed overnight.)

I am also in the dark about millions of tonnes that travel south by road that would switch to rail if only the Monsal route was reinstated. Obviously there are some flows to destinations remote from rail terminals or in modest quantities that couldn’t justify trainload operation.

 

[Falcon1200]

The potential for a direct link between the north west and east midlands,

That link already exists with the (Norwich)/Nottingham/Manchester via Sheffield trains. The only additional link the re-opened Peak line would provide would be between Derby and the North West, a journey possible now with a same-platform change at Chesterfield. And if there was sufficient demand to justify direct Derby/Manchester trains they could run now via the Dore South Curve!

Re-opening (or, in reality, practically building new from scratch) this line would cost a huge sum, and the line would then require massive subsidy on top, which the prospective traffic simply cannot justify.

 

[furnessvale]

From looking at RTT it is far from clear that ‘millions of tonnes’ of stone go via East Manchester before heading south.

In normal circumstances such traffic will run via Dore South Curve or via Altrincham and Northwich. (I know that during cyclical maintenance, typically one week in six, these routes may be closed overnight.)

I am also in the dark about millions of tonnes that travel south by road that would switch to rail if only the Monsal route was reinstated. Obviously there are some flows to destinations remote from rail terminals or in modest quantities that couldn’t justify trainload operation.

Forget RTT at present, there is a landslip at New Mills causing diverts. Prior to that a number of trains daily went the long way round. Even Altrincham- Northwich is quite a journey north from the Hindlow group of quarries, Dore even more so.

Perhaps you would be less in the dark if, like I have, you studied the "Derbyshire and Derby Minerals Local Plan (2022-2038) for hours, looking at the tonnage available from existing rail served quarries, comparing the percentage of freight moved by rail northbound, where a direct rail route exists, to the lower, or even non existent tonnage by rail to the south, where no such direct rail route exists.

So a 10 year old study with no commitments, effectively the same as this proposal then.

Except that no equivalant study into rail has been undertaken*, meaning that all those claiming the BCR would be hopeless have no evidence to substatiate such a clam.

*I qualify that statement in that over 20 years ago a travesty of a study was commissioned by the national park, who had a vested interest in stopping any reopening.

 

[yorksrob]

But you’ve provided no evidence that either of these things would actually happen - and no evidence that such vague aims would be worth the enormous price tag and damage to major local tourist attractions.

Why is it that you insist that lines with limited modern purpose should be reopened, but show minimal interest in ongoing reopenings - such as EWR?

There have been various studies in the past that have illustrated the potential benefits of the line, however my main argument rests on the success of similar regional railway routes such as the S&C, the Cumbrian Coast, Okehampton etc in serving local traffic.

In terms of EW Rail, I'm very glad it's going ahead, although I wasn't aware that I was required to provide an ongoing commentary.

I have frequently supported the opening to Okehampton to the extent of being a paying passenger on the service.

We've had threads in the past (notably about C*rm*rth*n-Ab*r*stw*th) debating whether traditional cost/benefit analysis via the DfT's TAG suite is the best way of assessing a railway reopening.

For better or worse, though, it is the system currently in use. It's vanishingly unlikely, I'm afraid, that reopening through the Peak would get anything near a convincing BCR. The immediate population is low. You could speed up East Midlands–North West journeys at a fraction of the cost by adding an extra Hope Valley service via Dore South Curve (again, extensively rehearsed in previous threads). The freight gets moved as it is and DfT doesn't really care about freight anyway. In this context the Monsal Trail is a bit of a red herring - reopening the railway wouldn't pass muster in its own right, walk/cycle route considerations aside.

In many ways this is a shame. The "social railway" has beneficial effects that aren't captured in a bare BCR figure. But until that system is changed, the Matlock–Buxton railway isn't reopening.

There's a good political argument for reforming the cost benefit assessment.

The line has a considerable advantage over the Carmarthen - Aber line in that this is a shorter missing link in the existing network.

 

[Meerkat]

There have been various studies in the past that have illustrated the potential benefits of the line, however my main argument rests on the success of similar regional railway routes such as the S&C, the Cumbrian Coast, Okehampton etc in serving local traffic.

Are they successful, or do they require significant subsidy for a limited service?
And that’s on existing lines. Spending billions to create a subsidy drain, against significant opposition, is political suicide.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Perhaps you would be less in the dark if, like I have, you studied the "Derbyshire and Derby Minerals Local Plan (2022-2028) for hours, looking at the tonnage available from existing rail served quarries, comparing the percentage of freight moved by rail northbound, where a direct rail route exists, to the lower, or even non existent tonnage by rail to the south, where no such direct rail route exists.

Thanks for this. (Is there a typo, most references seem to be for a plan for 2022-2038?)

I am unclear as to the current status of the plan, because most links are to Draft or Consultation papers, often un-dated. Can you clarify, please?

The suite of documents listed on 'civic' sites runs to over 70, including Appendices and more granular papers. Can you by any chance provide a simple link to a specific document that now has Official/Approved status for the next 14 years?

Some of the individual documents run to hundreds of pages, so detailed page/paragraph references would be useful too.

I am not surprised that you have spent many hours studying this cornucopia of information!

 

[Neptune]

Are they successful, or do they require significant subsidy for a limited service?
And that’s on existing lines. Spending billions to create a subsidy drain, against significant opposition, is political suicide.

Exactly. This is what some people are totally blind to.

Yes operational costs may be similar to the aforementioned rural routes but there’s one big difference. The other routes don’t need millions throwing at them to be actually built in the first place. They don’t need to evict and compensate an entire railway society. They don’t need to rebuild a well used cycle/walking trail. They already have tracks and signalling. They already have trains and crew paid for and allocated. They already have paths into the congested mainline system. Need I go on?

 

[BrianW]

Thanks for this. (Is there a typo, most references seem to be for a plan for 2022-2038?)

I am unclear as to the current status of the plan, because most links are to Draft or Consultation papers, often un-dated. Can you clarify, please?

The suite of documents listed on 'civic' sites runs to over 70, including Appendices and more granular papers. Can you by any chance provide a simple link to a specific document that now has Official/Approved status for the next 14 years?

Some of the individual documents run to hundreds of pages, so detailed page/paragraph references would be useful too.

I am not surprised that you have spent many hours studying this cornucopia of information!

Indeed, studies and 'plans' year after year ...little changes, little actual investment other than of time and consultants fees writing ,reading and responding to pages of 'well-researched' guff produced to support obvious already determined 'actions' (i.e inactions).

I appreciate that circumstance change- and not always for the better- like Covid and Government.

This 'proposal' failed to 'cut the mustard' for even the politically motivated 'Restoring Your Railway' fund and hopes of retaining former 'Red Wall' seats; cannot the existing 'reports' be left to gather dust? Time to 'call time'.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But first the landslip near New Mills needs fixing, currently restricting the route to single track until tha autumn. Certaily a good idea to increase seating capacity city to city and no neef to stop 6 car trains (over 6 is a bit too far fetched) at all 4 car platforms on the route. Both could selectively skip stops but we're off on a tangent with this.

Any reopening will come after NMC landslip rebuilding, so I wouldn't worry about that.

So more stock then, not just a railway to reopen as @Neptune has said.

Who would have thought that a reopened railway requires new stock?! A colossal shock to me /s

 

[Neptune]

Who would have thought that a reopened railway requires new stock?! A colossal shock to me /s

Yes and has that been costed in? I suspect not.

After all with realistic costings it would make all these reopenings look even less likely to happen from the current no chance of it happening (see also SELRAP, the kings of making spurious claims skirting nowhere near the truth and realism who purposefully underestimate costs and who the others seem to want to emulate).

 

[furnessvale]

Thanks for this. (Is there a typo, most references seem to be for a plan for 2022-2038?)

I am unclear as to the current status of the plan, because most links are to Draft or Consultation papers, often un-dated. Can you clarify, please?

The suite of documents listed on 'civic' sites runs to over 70, including Appendices and more granular papers. Can you by any chance provide a simple link to a specific document that now has Official/Approved status for the next 14 years?

Some of the individual documents run to hundreds of pages, so detailed page/paragraph references would be useful too.

I am not surprised that you have spent many hours studying this cornucopia of information!

Yes, a typo,2038 it is.

I am uncertain as to the current status of the minerals plan, BUT, unlike the sort of "plan" Brian W refers to, a minerals plan is a legal requirement for every county in England, basically to ensure it will meet future requirements for aggregates etc into the future. On that basis this plan WILL be adopted even if subject to slight amendments.

It is not simply a matter of providing links to various sub sections etc. I have used statistics like volumes of stone extracted from each quarry per annum, regional destination for products, percentage of product by rail, which are scattered through the document like confetti because they were never intended to be used in this form.

Sadly, due to non disclosure agreements with various companies involved, I am not at liberty to disclose further information and must remain dumb while a storm of speculation rages around on these pages.

 

[HSTEd]

A large fraction (~75%) of remaining mineral extraction planning permissions will expire, all at once, in 2042.

It's probably not a great plan to try to base the economics of a scheme on a quarry unless it has a long term planning consent.

And, in any case, if we were trying to get more quarry traffic for the railway from the area, there are numerous alternatives to a railway connection that could cost a billion pounds!

A rope-based solution from Buxton to near Macclesfield would eliminate that issue for a tiny fraction of the price, and I'm sure other solutions are available.

 

[A0wen]

It could be either. Obviously I'me more interested in the improvement to local public transport, but there would be different views as to where the longer distance Derby services would end up.

An additional option of one change would give people in the area more options, however an open access operator might decide that a London service could work for the area.

So basically you're shifting your position.

There are loads of places, far bigger than Buxton plus the rest of the route down to Matlock which have 1 route with 1 change to get to London - do all of those deserve two or three alternatives ?

As for open access (OAO) - so far the OAOs have focused on secondary cities - Buxton, Matlock and Bakewell aren't in that class. And the congestion and lack of capacity on the southern end of the Midland Mainline probably precludes an OAO along there.

 

[A0wen]

That link already exists with the (Norwich)/Nottingham/Manchester via Sheffield trains. The only additional link the re-opened Peak line would provide would be between Derby and the North West, a journey possible now with a same-platform change at Chesterfield. And if there was sufficient demand to justify direct Derby/Manchester trains they could run now via the Dore South Curve!

Re-opening (or, in reality, practically building new from scratch) this line would cost a huge sum, and the line would then require massive subsidy on top, which the prospective traffic simply cannot justify.

Bit in bold - or via Stoke, also same platform interchange.

 

[A0wen]

Any reopening will come after NMC landslip rebuilding, so I wouldn't worry about that.

Who would have thought that a reopened railway requires new stock?! A colossal shock to me /s

Bit in bold - what new stock was ordered for Borders reopening, or Okehampton ?

 

[zwk500]

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

I do find it astonishing how easily some people let personal prejudgements lead them so wrong in their posts. I worked for NR in a team connected to that Long-Term planning apparatus and in that time I'd estimate at least 1/3 of the projects I worked on examined the possibility of reopening a closed line in some form or other. That's far overrepresenting re-opening proposals compared to the amount of jobs that need looking at on the existing network. Monsal wasn't in my area so don't know how often it specifically came up.

NR clearly aren't in a position to adjudicate on the transport needs off of the network EW rail is a necessary project but again, it is a large politically generated project. I very much doubt that NR initiated it.

NR's job is to manage and develop the network, which includes spotting potential sources of demand that could contribute positively to the running of the railway. It has plenty of information available to it through various sources (lots of it publicly available) with which to project such demand off-network, and it meets regularly with various stakeholders to hear about proposals that might impact the railway (such as a massive housebuilding programme) and ideas that user groups, political bodies, or any other interested party has as to how the railway will be part of the plans.

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

On a point of pedantry, the reports are produced by consultants (including NR) for MEMRAP/Stakeholders. NR is also a stakeholder, and does commission reports as a client which are written by either it's own teams or by private sector consultants.

To improve the local public transport network and provide more capacity and resilience to the wider railway system.

Fairly obvious I'd have thought.

But it doesn't do either of the last 2 things in any meaningful way. It's not like there's great swathes of capacity at Stockport simply waiting for paths over the pennines to be created, or a total lack of trains on the Midland Mainline south of Leicester where trains from Buxton could easily drop in to, and for freight to reach Toton or Crewe requires fighting through Derby, etc.. And what scenarios are you imagining under resilience? Monsal doesn't help Earles sidings one bit, and the Buxton quarries can already leave in totally different directions if they wish to.

There's a good political argument for reforming the cost benefit assessment.

This is certainly true.

 

[daodao]

There seems to be a common theme on this forum of some members promoting the re-opening of missing sections of former through routes that were initially built by competing rail companies to provide alternative links in the railway's heyday in the last half of the 19th century. These competing routes were typically closed as duplicate lines in the latter part of the 1960s, as through traffic could easily be accommodated on other more useful routes that were retained. There may be a good case for re-opening the ends of these routes where circumstances are appropriate, as these are typically links into sizeable cities or conurbations, and in some instances this has occurred. However, the business cases for re-opening the middle sections, often through sparsely populated countryside, are poor.

The former Midland Railway's route into Manchester from its headquarters in Derby is a good example. There is a very poor case for re-opening the closed Matlock-Great Rocks junction section, but the sections south of Matlock and beyond Great Rocks have been retained and used for a variety of purposes, with the South District line re-opened as a Metrolink route. Similar re-openings that the usual suspects widely promote are the Waverley line south of Hawick, Okehampton-Tavistock, Skipton-Colne, Ripon-Northallerton, Beverley-York, the Great Central line north of Calvert and the Woodhead line east of Hadfield. I would put Bedford-Cambridge in this category, although others disagree, and re-opening this section does have some political support despite a poor BCR.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes and has that been costed in? I suspect not.

After all with realistic costings it would make all these reopenings look even less likely to happen from the current no chance of it happening (see also SELRAP, the kings of making spurious claims skirting nowhere near the truth and realism who purposefully underestimate costs and who the others seem to want to emulate).

The new rolling stock order for Northern should be designed for growth from the outset, which would provide capacity for the reopening.

A rope-based solution from Buxton to near Macclesfield would eliminate that issue for a tiny fraction of the price, and I'm sure other solutions are available.

There's absolutely no chance of a scheme like that being built - it would cross a swathe of the PDNP and dump cargo onto a very congested section of the WCML! Plus land in Cheshire East isn't particularly easy to acquire either.

 

[yorksrob]

I do find it astonishing how easily some people let personal prejudgements lead them so wrong in their posts. I worked for NR in a team connected to that Long-Term planning apparatus and in that time I'd estimate at least 1/3 of the projects I worked on examined the possibility of reopening a closed line in some form or other. That's far overrepresenting re-opening proposals compared to the amount of jobs that need looking at on the existing network. Monsal wasn't in my area so don't know how often it specifically came up.

NR's job is to manage and develop the network, which includes spotting potential sources of demand that could contribute positively to the running of the railway. It has plenty of information available to it through various sources (lots of it publicly available) with which to project such demand off-network, and it meets regularly with various stakeholders to hear about proposals that might impact the railway (such as a massive housebuilding programme) and ideas that user groups, political bodies, or any other interested party has as to how the railway will be part of the plans.

On a point of pedantry, the reports are produced by consultants (including NR) for MEMRAP/Stakeholders. NR is also a stakeholder, and does commission reports as a client which are written by either it's own teams or by private sector consultants.

But it doesn't do either of the last 2 things in any meaningful way. It's not like there's great swathes of capacity at Stockport simply waiting for paths over the pennines to be created, or a total lack of trains on the Midland Mainline south of Leicester where trains from Buxton could easily drop in to, and for freight to reach Toton or Crewe requires fighting through Derby, etc.. And what scenarios are you imagining under resilience? Monsal doesn't help Earles sidings one bit, and the Buxton quarries can already leave in totally different directions if they wish to.

This is certainly true.

I stand corrected. I look forward to seeing some new routes proposed by Network Rail to truly smash my scepticism.

However, for all your talk of the line not improving resilience/capacity in any meaningful way, I can't help but note that millions have just been spent upgrading the Hope Valley, which feeds many of the same pinch points that you've cited, so I presume that isn't wasted.

So basically you're shifting your position.

There are loads of places, far bigger than Buxton plus the rest of the route down to Matlock which have 1 route with 1 change to get to London - do all of those deserve two or three alternatives ?

As for open access (OAO) - so far the OAOs have focused on secondary cities - Buxton, Matlock and Bakewell aren't in that class. And the congestion and lack of capacity on the southern end of the Midland Mainline probably precludes an OAO along there.

No, it still needs reopening.

There seems to be a common theme on this forum of some members promoting the re-opening of missing sections of former through routes that were initially built by competing rail companies to provide alternative links in the railway's heyday in the last half of the 19th century. These competing routes were typically closed as duplicate lines in the latter part of the 1960s, as through traffic could easily be accommodated on other more useful routes that were retained. There may be a good case for re-opening the ends of these routes where circumstances are appropriate, as these are typically links into sizeable cities or conurbations, and in some instances this has occurred. However, the business cases for re-opening the middle sections, often through sparsely populated countryside, are poor.

The former Midland Railway's route into Manchester from its headquarters in Derby is a good example. There is a very poor case for re-opening the closed Matlock-Great Rocks junction section, but the sections south of Matlock and beyond Great Rocks have been retained and used for a variety of purposes, with the South District line re-opened as a Metrolink route. Similar re-openings that the usual suspects widely promote are the Waverley line south of Hawick, Okehampton-Tavistock, Skipton-Colne, Ripon-Northallerton, Beverley-York, the Great Central line north of Calvert and the Woodhead line east of Hadfield. I would put Bedford-Cambridge in this category, although others disagree, and re-opening this section does have some political support despite a poor BCR.

And the policy to close "duplicate" routes was an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Neptune]

The new rolling stock order for Northern should be designed for growth from the outset, which would provide capacity for the reopening

So it’s been decided now that Northern are going to operate the line. Including the London service proposed?

The new fleet is being planned around growth. However it thankfully doesnt take into account pie in the sky schemes that never have a chance of getting off the ground as that would be seen as financial suicide.

Unless of course you would like your fares to rise to help pay for these units standing idle waiting for that day of reopening which ultimately never comes.

 

[furnessvale]

So it’s been decided now that Northern are going to operate the line. Including the London service proposed?

The new fleet is being planned around growth. However it thankfully doesnt take into account pie in the sky schemes that never have a chance of getting off the ground as that would be seen as financial suicide.

Unless of course you would like your fares to rise to help pay for these units standing idle waiting for that day of reopening which ultimately never comes.

Other than on the pages of this forum, just who is proposing a London service? This is typical of the false scenarios being set up in order to mock the proposal.

Regarding train paths, before any extra ones are even considered, paths already exist into Manchester and Derby. At the moment they stop short at Buxton, Hazel Grove and Matlock instead of penetrating the Peak. Other paths have long been considered by extending trains from New Mills Central to a reopened Chapel Central.