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

[43066]

It’s also debatable whether creating commuting possibilities is a good thing. Some locals might get better jobs but many locals would probably get priced out of their home towns/villages as long distance commuters took up th opportunity to live in thE countryside (or even worse it makes second homes there even more attractive).

Whatever the merits of this particular scheme this seems an odd, parochial viewpoint. Basically not wanting economic prosperity because it might cause house prices to increase.

 

[dosxuk]

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.

Are the millions of passengers wanting to travel from Derby to Manchester going to be happy with an all shacks service trundling through the peaks? Those paths take an 1h50 to do Derby-Matlock and Buxton-Piccadilly - so we're not including the closed bit. It only takes just over 1h30 to go via Sheffield on the existing services, including the change.

 

[furnessvale]

Are the millions of passengers wanting to travel from Derby to Manchester going to be happy with an all shacks service trundling through the peaks? Those paths take an 1h50 to do Derby-Matlock and Buxton-Piccadilly - so we're not including the closed bit. It only takes just over 1h30 to go via Sheffield on the existing services, including the change.

I did say "before any extra paths are even considered". As usual, taken out of context. As for your sarcastic millions, 13 million visit the Peak every year, so that is a reasonable start to attracting people out of their cars, if the National Park is to even begin meeting its carbon reduction requirements.

The alternative being to close the Peak District to visitors.

 

[dosxuk]

13 million visit the Peak every year

And how many more would be attracted to the Bakewell area versus how many would stop visiting if the Monsal Trail and Peak Rail were closed down?

The Peak District covers 555 square miles - reinstating this line will only really open up around 15 square miles of that to rail users. You're not going to make much of a difference to car usage with that sort of increase - especially considering the big attractions in those areas - Buxton / Matlock / Chatsworth - are all already rail served or will still require cars to access.

 

[Neptune]

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.

Ok we’ll take away London out of the scenario.

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.

Do the paths match up at either end to fit in with the current paths or are you looking at a huge risky recast at one or both ends? Has the question been asked of potential users (not just enthusiasts promoting every reopening) if they would use it and what for. For instance this much vaunted Manchester to Derby link taking a very long time on a stopper would it be enough to encourage people either out of their cars or away from the change at Sheffield option that actually exists or is it ignored as these things usually seem to be.

Also noticed you didn’t answer my question regarding paying for new trains sitting idle while we wait for this line to be (probably never) opened.

That’s the thing with these schemes. People want them mainly for their own benefit and use others as an excuse of why it’s required. In this case (seemingly met with fingers in ears) they don’t seem to care about the 2 large visitor attractions that would be hugely affected by it both of which would cost the area large visitor numbers as well as the huge compensation costs that would be required.

They always want someone else to pay for it and any suggestion that they should gets met with fingers in ears.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

Reopening the railway would carve a path through the PDNP too at the end of the day. A surface railway will also have rather more impact on the actual park than a series of towers with cables between them!

Whatever the merits of a specific scheme, significant disruption to the PDNP is inevitable.

 

[The Planner]

So is the suggestion now that this is just a reopening for a local service?

 

[A0wen]

No, it still needs reopening.

Why? Apart from your obsession with reopening every inch of track to every hamlet you've provided no justification for this one and have shifted your position depending on your mood it seems.

There isn't a huge demand for Buxton to London travel any more than there is from Gainsborough, Skegness or Glossop. The only improvement Buxton *really* needs is for the line to Manchester to be electrified which would improve journey times.

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

Care to justify that ? Are you seriously claiming there would be more rail passengers if, for example, the GC was still open providing an alternative London - Leicester service or Leicester - Nottingham service ? Both corridors the Midland Mainline provides a much better service on.

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.

Whilst not being specific about services, their "aspiration" for the rolling stock specifcation gives an indication https://peaksanddalesline.co.uk/The-Railway/

Whilst it is too early to be specific about the trains that would operate, we have set out our proposed outline specification, based on an assessment of existing trains and emerging designs.

This includes features such as:

• high-capacity, with potential for up to 540 passengers, all seated

To put it in context a 4 car Class 350 used as a London commuter unit seats about 250. 500 seats is Pendolino territory - you're not seriously suggesting that size of unit is even remotely sensible for a Manchester - Derby regional "stopper" ?

Are the millions of passengers wanting to travel from Derby to Manchester going to be happy with an all shacks service trundling through the peaks? Those paths take an 1h50 to do Derby-Matlock and Buxton-Piccadilly - so we're not including the closed bit. It only takes just over 1h30 to go via Sheffield on the existing services, including the change.

Well, quite. And there is also the option of going via Stoke on Trent to Manchester with times of 1h 30m - 1h 45m depending on connection time.

I did say "before any extra paths are even considered". As usual, taken out of context. As for your sarcastic millions, 13 million visit the Peak every year, so that is a reasonable start to attracting people out of their cars, if the National Park is to even begin meeting its carbon reduction requirements.

The alternative being to close the Peak District to visitors.

Lets unpick that a bit - the 13 million is to the Peak District National Park - helpfully Wikipedia explains that the Peak District national park is an area of 555 square miles - it stretches from the A62 (Manchester - Huddersfield road) in the north, to the A52 (Stoke - Derby road) in the south, from just outside Sheffield in the east to just outside Macclesfield in the west. It's an area about the same size as Tyne and Wear just for context.

This line would run through one very small part of the Peak District National Park - so it would only be of use to a fraction of that 13 million, even before you then weight it down to 10% or 20% of visitors choosing to arrive by train over other forms of transport.

The biggest single attraction in the area is Chatsworth - Visit Britain's visitor survey from 2022 https://www.visitbritain.org/research-insights/england-visitor-attractions-latest shows Chatsworth wasn't in the Top 20 of paid attractions in the UK - though it was the largest in the East Midlands, with visitor numbers of 596,000 and it has direct bus connections to Chesterfield, Sheffield and Derby for connection onto the rail network. A station at Bakewell would be some distance from Chatsworth and a long walk especially for visitors with children.

It's nearest equivalents which are in the Top 20 are Blenheim (800k) and Tatton (705k) - yet neither are perfectly served by rail and need bus connections (yes you could walk from Hanborough, but even Blenheim's own website encourages either Oxford or Oxford Parkway), Tatton has got Knutsford station close by, but that's on the secondary route between Manchester and Chester and their website points out the bus links to Macclesfield, Wilmslow and Warrington.

So is the suggestion now that this is just a reopening for a local service?

Depends who's asking Yorksrob it seems - because in the space of about 3 posts in responding to mine we had 'local' service, then regional, then London then Open Access - so you're as confused as I am. Though Memrap seem to envisage something akin to a Pendolino in terms of capacity which does feel a tad excessive for a Manchester - Derby local via the Peaks.

 

[dosxuk]

So is the suggestion now that this is just a reopening for a local service?

I think it's a local service to allow long distance travellers to access the peaks, an express service to get people from Manchester to Derby and a London to Bakewell service, with a bunch of open access operators picking up the slack.

 

[A0wen]

I think it's a local service to allow long distance travellers to access the peaks, an express service to get people from Manchester to Derby and a London to Bakewell service, with a bunch of open access operators picking up the slack.

Operated by trains with the same seating capacity as a Pendolino........

 

[Dr Hoo]

I think it's a local service to allow long distance travellers to access the peaks, an express service to get people from Manchester to Derby and a London to Bakewell service, with a bunch of open access operators picking up the slack.

And heavy freight (and why not heritage operation/charters too?).

 

[Meerkat]

Whatever the merits of this particular scheme this seems an odd, parochial viewpoint. Basically not wanting economic prosperity because it might cause house prices to increase.

Economic prosperity for who though?
You turn a rural village into a commuter town and you drive out the young people as they won’t be able to afford to live in their own area. And you won’t be able to correct that with new housing estates, not in a National park.

 

[furnessvale]

The more I read this thread the more I realise no-one has even bothered to open the MEMRAP site and read its content, let alone attempting to understand the complex work being undertaken with stakeholders, including NR and the DfT, much of which cannot be open to the public.

I'll just leave you to your speculations.

 

[yorksrob]

So is the suggestion now that this is just a reopening for a local service?

I think it's a local service to allow long distance travellers to access the peaks, an express service to get people from Manchester to Derby and a London to Bakewell service, with a bunch of open access operators picking up the slack.

And heavy freight (and why not heritage operation/charters too?).

Ha ha ha, yes a mixed traffic railway, how ridiculous. It's not as though pretty much every main line in the country is mixed traffic ...........oh !

Ok we’ll take away London out of the scenario.

Do the paths match up at either end to fit in with the current paths or are you looking at a huge risky recast at one or both ends? Has the question been asked of potential users (not just enthusiasts promoting every reopening) if they would use it and what for. For instance this much vaunted Manchester to Derby link taking a very long time on a stopper would it be enough to encourage people either out of their cars or away from the change at Sheffield option that actually exists or is it ignored as these things usually seem to be.

Also noticed you didn’t answer my question regarding paying for new trains sitting idle while we wait for this line to be (probably never) opened.

That’s the thing with these schemes. People want them mainly for their own benefit and use others as an excuse of why it’s required. In this case (seemingly met with fingers in ears) they don’t seem to care about the 2 large visitor attractions that would be hugely affected by it both of which would cost the area large visitor numbers as well as the huge compensation costs that would be required.

They always want someone else to pay for it and any suggestion that they should gets met with fingers in ears.

What are these 2 large visitor attractions that will be affected ?

I know the bycicle route would have to be lost, but what is the other ?

 

[A0wen]

The more I read this thread the more I realise no-one has even bothered to open the MEMRAP site and read its content, let alone attempting to understand the complex work being undertaken with stakeholders, including NR and the DfT, much of which cannot be open to the public.

I'll just leave you to your speculations.

Well actually some of us have - and it doesn't say anything fundamentally different to the many other campaign sites.

But let's deal with some of the claims - starting with the quarry traffic - attached is a copy of Google Maps showing the quarries around the Peak District National Park.

On the basis the current road traffic will be on the A6 - which the old railway line shadowed, you can see there are 3 in the Buxton area which may be sending traffic southwards so on the A6 and a couple around Matlock which might be sending traffic north on the A6 - but since we kept being told on this thread that the problem is train loads being sent north around Manchester to go south, so let's assume most of the traffic is southbound. So taking that traffic off the A6 could easily be addressed by improving the A53 from Buxton to Leek which is much more sparsely populated than the A6 corridor and then outside the National Park territory, by pass Leek to the east to join the A523 and improve that road to Ashbourne and onto the A50, from which both the M6 and M1 are easily accessible.

That's before you start unpicking the supposed passenger demands.

Ha ha ha, yes a mixed traffic railway, how ridiculous. It's not as though pretty much every main line in the country is mixed traffic ...........oh !

You clearly didn't read @The Planner's post about the problems a 2 track railway with all different variants causes - in this case the WCML north of Preston.

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

What are these 2 large visitor attractions that will be affected ?

I know the bycicle route would have to be lost, but what is the other ?

Peak Rail at a guess. But you could also add Hassop station cafe and other businesses which would almost certainly lose out - because rail travellers and more importantly rail enthusiasts seem to be of the 'deep pocket, short arm' tendency when it comes to spending at attractions.

 

[Mike 1050]

Has anyone mentioned what the big holes in the ground created by the quarries will be used for when they close ?
Maybe land fill in the future ? which could generate rail traffic long into the future

 

[furnessvale]

I know the bycicle route would have to be lost, but what is the other ?

Just a factual point. Memrap have stated from day ONE that a replacement Monsal trail will be provided to at least as good a standard but with betterment already identified in places.

 

[yorksrob]

Just a factual point. Memrap have stated from day ONE that a replacement Monsal trail will be provided to at least as good a standard but with betterment already identified in places.

That's good as it should remove the principal objection.

 

[Dr Hoo]

What are these 2 large visitor attractions that will be affected ?

I know the bycicle route would have to be lost, but what is the other ?

Peak Rail?

 

[Neptune]

What are these 2 large visitor attractions that will be affected ?

I know the bycicle route would have to be lost, but what is the other ?

Peak Rail and all the compensation for rehousing the whole society and its associated groups. I’ve mentioned it a couple of times but it seems that it gets conveniently forgotten, as evidenced here.

 

[The Planner]

The more I read this thread the more I realise no-one has even bothered to open the MEMRAP site and read its content, let alone attempting to understand the complex work being undertaken with stakeholders, including NR and the DfT, much of which cannot be open to the public.

I'll just leave you to your speculations.

I have read it, there is no detail apart from we want to reopen it. Lots of "working on" "developing options" "proposing" etc. There is talk of loops and stations with more than two platforms, but no real idea of where. They also talk about Ambergate north curve as well.

Ha ha ha, yes a mixed traffic railway, how ridiculous. It's not as though pretty much every main line in the country is mixed traffic ...........oh !

And as I noted previously, it works so well north of Preston.

 

[Neptune]

I have read it, there is no detail apart from we want to reopen it. Lots of "working on" "developing options" "proposing" etc. There is talk of loops and stations with more than two platforms, but no real idea of where. They also talk about Ambergate north curve as well.

Indeed as a fellow planner I’ve intently read it through in detail (turns out there isn’t much) and the plan seems to be that there is no plan.

 

[HSTEd]

And as I noted previously, it works so well north of Preston.

And modern rail schemes like HS2 spend enormous sums to escape the tyranny of the mixed traffic railway!

 

[AlastairFraser]

Reopening the railway would carve a path through the PDNP too at the end of the day. A surface railway will also have rather more impact on the actual park than a series of towers with cables between them!

Whatever the merits of a specific scheme, significant disruption to the PDNP is inevitable.

The visual impact of a reopened existing railway alignment on the landscape is incomparable to the visual impact of an aerial ropeway over the Cat and Fiddle. The ropeway would be a blot on the landscape from as far away as Warrington - the Cheshire plain is flat and the prominence of the Macc Forest moorland being marred by a ropeway would be a curse on both towns.

 

[A0wen]

The visual impact of a reopened existing railway alignment on the landscape is incomparable to the visual impact of an aerial ropeway over the Cat and Fiddle. The ropeway would be a blot on the landscape from as far away as Warrington - the Cheshire plain is flat and the prominence of the Macc Forest moorland being marred by a ropeway would be a curse on both towns.

I think you're exaggerating somewhat - from the Cloud just outside Congleton you struggle to see Warrington. On a clear day you can't pick out much beyond Jodrell Bank and you've got another 20 ish miles from Jodrell onto Warrington with things like the M6 in the way.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Just a factual point. Memrap have stated from day ONE that a replacement Monsal trail will be provided to at least as good a standard but with betterment already identified in places.

They have, but they haven't actually said where this replacement trail will go and what particular standards it will be built to (gradient etc.)... and "day one" was quite a long time ago.

I'm sure there are good reasons for this, such as landowner permission, but you must surely understand that there is going to be some scepticism when the publicly available detail right now is nothing more than "trust us, bro".

 

[A0wen]

Has anyone mentioned what the big holes in the ground created by the quarries will be used for when they close ?
Maybe land fill in the future ? which could generate rail traffic long into the future

Well since most of those quarries are already rail linked, I'm not sure why you'd need a new line to bring in landfill to them ? Surely the existing lines would be used ?

 

[Nottingham59]

Can someone explain what's wrong with the existing rail provision for the quarries around Buxton? There seem to be plenty of routes out, so it should be possible to manage maintenance schedules so that at least one of Dore, Altrincham, Hyde Central, or Reddish North is available every night during the week.

It's not as if there is that much stone being quarried. It's well under 5m tons per year, which at 5000t per train is around four trains per weekday.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Can someone explain what's wrong with the existing rail provision for the quarries around Buxton? There seem to be plenty of routes out, so it should be possible to manage maintenance schedules so that at least one of Dore, Altrincham, Hyde Central, or Reddish North is available every night during the week.

It's not as if there is that much stone being quarried. It's well under than 5m tons per year, which at 5000t per train is around four trains per weekday.

When a lot of stone is heading down south and there is only one direct route out (onto an extremely congested MML), that means goods traffic is vulnerable to disruption.
There's also a big cement factory at Hope/Castleton that has to use the Hope Valley and which has relatively frequent rail services. Add to that it being the only Manchester to Sheffield and beyond route, and the difficulties start to mount up.

 

[ac6000cw]

When a lot of stone is heading down south and there is only one direct route out (onto an extremely congested MML), that means goods traffic is vulnerable to disruption.

But if that stone traffic went south via Matlock wouldn't it end up on the same MML (joining it just a bit further south)?

If it joins it at Dore (as now) at least it can travel via the Erewash Valley route and hence avoid Derby. Joining the ex-Midland Railway network at Dore also gives more flexible routing options to the south and eastern parts of England.