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

[yorksrob]

So is this reopening for short-distance passengers or long-distance passengers?

Short distance, medium distance and long distance passengers. That's the beauty of railways.

 

[Killingworth]

Ah, the Hazel Grove chord. Peter Fox would be able to tell a lot about that - and redoubling at Dore, his local station. Sadly he's no longer with us but he's left a few clues found here in the NARKIVE railway archive; https://uk.railway.narkive.com/2raOfFlr/hazel-grove-chord

 

[zwk500]

Alternatively, how long did it take to plan and build the Hazel Grove curve ?

I say that because I'm guessing that it wasn't as long as the twenty years it's taken to re-double Dore. Perhaps the long lead in time has something to do with the way the railway is managed, rather than an inherent problem with railway building.

There is certainly a massive problem with how national infrastructure (not just the railways) are managed slowing everything down, but be sure to compare apples with apples. When did the legal process for Dore actually start?

Great, where do I sign up.

Milton Keynes, NR are regularly advertising for planners.

But I'm assuming that you're not denying that we do manage with mixed use railways and I'm assuming that you agree that this line won't be as heavily used as the West Coast Main Line, so why are so many people on this thread using the fact that this route would be mixed traffic as a reason that this one somehow wouldn't work ?

But your justification for why it would work is that it wouldn't be very busy, and therefore it would represent poor value for money.

I want a transport network. Trains are a key part of a transport network to carry medium and longer distance passengers.

They are, but they are about big bulk loads of people. What's the current AADT on the A6 between Matlock at Buxton?

I personally think that this line would be far more useful to people than Woodhead. It has far more potential for local and intermediate services as there are more settlements to be joined.

Well Woodhead isn't reopening either, so this point is rather moot.

 

[The Planner]

Great, where do I sign up.

Careers - Network Rail

Are you looking to do meaningful work everyday? Start a rewarding career with us. Search our current vacancies.

www.networkrail.co.uk

The route has a lot of infrastructure. A lot will need to be repaired, some will need to be replaced but not all. Quite a different prospect from driving a completely new route through the landscape.

I personally think that this line would be far more useful to people than Woodhead. It has far more potential for local and intermediate services as there are more settlements to be joined.

Its not just Matlock to Buxton though is it, even MEMRAP vaguely recognises its Ambergate to Manchester and the infrastructure hasn't been touched in 55 years apart from checking it won't collapse on anyone. It is a rebuild.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But there is already a railway to Buxton. The quarries shift a lot of their output via it. Buxton spring water doesn‘t. Neither are time sensitive. How would a new railway between Buxton and Matlock change that? And what contribution would the freight traffic make to the construction cost of the railway?

It would enable more customers to use the railway to reach their destinations in the most efficient way - for a lot of potential customers, they'll be delivering loads to the Golden warehousing Triangle around Northampton/Birmingham. A mixed load train could be a regular traffic source that helps to pay for the ongoing running costs of the railway.

As for the construction cost - freight won't pay for all of it, but the combination of increased passenger and freight volumes could help offset part of it.

Unfortunately there is no supermarket distribution centre that would need a whole train load of one single brand of bottled water at a time.

Maybe not one, but several supermarkets have distribution centres along the M1 corridor that have rail connections or are close to access points.

 

[zwk500]

It would enable more customers to use the railway to reach their destinations in the most efficient way - for a lot of potential customers, they'll be delivering loads to the Golden warehousing Triangle around Northampton/Birmingham. A mixed load train could be a regular traffic source that helps to pay for the ongoing running costs of the railway.

I could see the argument for logistics to East Mids Airport (although that will still involve a runround somewhere). But anything to Northampton/Birmingham is going to be much easier to path via Crewe than via Tamworth Burton.

 

[Killingworth]

There is certainly a massive problem with how national infrastructure (not just the railways) are managed slowing everything down, but be sure to compare apples with apples. When did the legal process for Dore actually start?

Fair question although it depends on where you define the legal process to have started. Presumably not Railtrack's plan for Dore redoubling in CP5 in 2003-4. By 2005 Network Rail were publicly consulting Sheffield planners so maybe not then. In 2013 SYPTE completed a 129 space car park planned in anticipation of completion of the redoubling. The first public consultations in that year might indicate that the legal process had started before then?

It certainly takes a very long time to get anything done especially when you live beside it and can see, or most often not see, progress being made.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I could see the argument for logistics to East Mids Airport (although that will still involve a runround somewhere). But anything to Northampton/Birmingham is going to be much easier to path via Crewe than via Tamworth.

Of course you could send it Buxton - Matlock - Derby - Stoke - WCML if that would be easier.

 

[dosxuk]

It would enable more customers to use the railway to reach their destinations in the most efficient way

Which customers? How many companies in Buxton, Bakewell and Matlock are looking for national distribution in the scales that make sense for rail?

for a lot of potential customers, they'll be delivering loads to the Golden warehousing Triangle around Northampton/Birmingham.

For which you'd go via the WCML, not MML.

 

[The Planner]

Of course you could send it Buxton - Matlock - Derby - Stoke - WCML if that would be easier.

How? you need a run round at Stoke to do that, adding 25-30 minutes you could be travelling in. You also need to upgrade the North Staffs Derby line to gauge clear it as well if you are expecting Intermodal, so more cost.

 

[zwk500]

Of course you could send it Buxton - Matlock - Derby - Stoke - WCML if that would be easier.

For context, I've attached thumbnails of the W10 and W12 clearance around this line. Derby is only W8 cleared, although of course you could use something like IWA wagons (picture) for products like bottled water, if they're shipped in a way the distribution centres can handle.
However I suspect the reality is that Buxton to Northampton simply isn't long enough for rail to be viable, there isn't the volume for mineral water to anywhere a unit train might make sense and wagonload trip freight to Birmingham simply wouldn't cover the operating costs.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Which customers? How many companies in Buxton, Bakewell and Matlock are looking for national distribution in the scales that make sense for rail?



For which you'd go via the WCML, not MML.

Potentially Buxton water, Federal Mogul in Chapel, Swizzels Matlow in New Mills, Flowflex piping factory in Buxton are all places where a southern link would be an attractive proposition.

The WCML through Stockport and Crewe is congested and there's no potential for any more than a few extra paths due to the cancellation of HS2 phase 2b.
If you wanted to get to the Northampton loop, you can head through Derby - Burton - Leicester and Hinckley to Nuneaton.

 

[WAO]

I wonder whether railway development around Buxton could focus on the present infrastructure which still exists on both routes into Manchester.

If the potential through station were to come to pass then an "out and back" service might prosper, being out via Whalley Bridge and back via Chinley, and reverse. That would avoid some layover and increase journey offers, including a change for Sheffield.

The Miller's Dale Jn to Matlock reopening is too remote - almost akin to Royston to Shipley via Dewsbury, the last glint in the MR's eye!

WAO

 

[zwk500]

Potentially Buxton water, Federal Mogul in Chapel, Swizzels Matlow in New Mills, Flowflex piping factory in Buxton are all places where a southern link would be an attractive proposition.

Do any of these produce sufficient volume to justify even 1 train per week to a single distribution centre? Or will it be cheaper for them to continue with road haulage to an existing railhead?

If you wanted to get to the Northampton loop, you can head through Derby - Burton - Leicester and Hinckley to Nuneaton.

At which point you are facing completely the wrong way and would need to continue on to Water Orton, loop up via the Sutton Park Line, Aston and Stechford then run through Cov to get to Northampton.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I wonder whether railway development around Buxton could focus on the present infrastructure which still exists on both routes into Manchester.

If the potential through station were to come to pass then an "out and back" service might prosper, being out via Whalley Bridge and back via Chinley, and reverse. That would avoid some layover and increase journey offers, including a change for Sheffield.

The Miller's Dale Jn to Matlock reopening is too remote - almost akin to Cudworth to Shipley via Dewsbury, the last glint in the MR's eye!

WAO

That would require an upgrade of Chinley to Buxton via Peak Dale to passenger standards for barely any benefit.
Better to introduce connections with the fast Sheffield services stopping at Hazel Grove, if your goal is Sheffield connections.

 

[Neptune]

The Miller's Dale Jn to Matlock reopening is too remote - almost akin to Royston to Shipley via Dewsbury, the last glint in the MR's eye!

Don’t give people ideas!

At which point you are facing completely the wrong way and would need to continue on to Water Orton, loop up via the Sutton Park Line, Aston and Stechford then run through Cov to get to Northampton.

That sounds like an extremely congested route to me. Makes you wonder if some people ever look at a track map doesn’t it!

 

[zwk500]

That sounds like an extremely congested route to me. Makes you wonder if some people ever look at a track map doesn’t it!

Indeed. It's less busy now than it has been I think but it's still a right pain to fit a 60/75mph train through!

What could benefit the case for freight would be a pair of curves at Tamworth to allow Burton-Nuneaton traffic in both directions to avoid the West Mids, but that's its own project and I'm fairly sure housing is now sprouting up on the area it would need to go into. Probably a separate speculative thread!

 

[The Planner]

Potentially Buxton water, Federal Mogul in Chapel, Swizzels Matlow in New Mills, Flowflex piping factory in Buxton are all places where a southern link would be an attractive proposition.

The WCML through Stockport and Crewe is congested and there's no potential for any more than a few extra paths due to the cancellation of HS2 phase 2b.
If you wanted to get to the Northampton loop, you can head through Derby - Burton - Leicester and Hinckley to Nuneaton.

As noted, you are either going to Washwood Heath to run round or via the Sutton Park to get towards Rugby. Burton to Leicester is knackered and again, not gauge clear. So more cash to justify it. You would just carry on at Burton.

Indeed. It's less busy now than it has been I think but it's still a right pain to fit a 60/75mph train through!

What could benefit the case for freight would be a pair of curves at Tamworth to allow Burton-Nuneaton traffic in both directions to avoid the West Mids, but that's its own project and I'm fairly sure housing is now sprouting up on the area it would need to go into. Probably a separate speculative thread!

The plan was always a sharp slow curve at Whitacre to enable flows from Derby to Nuneaton. Never got anywhere though.

 

[dosxuk]

Potentially Buxton water, Federal Mogul in Chapel, Swizzels Matlow in New Mills, Flowflex piping factory in Buxton are all places where a southern link would be an attractive proposition.

Buxton, Chapel & New Mills already have access to the MML via Chinley, so that lack of access can not be the reason why these companies haven't put together a new freight route. New Mills has three rail lines running through it, with one running across Swizzels' back door - yet they've never applied to have a siding installed - what makes you think a rail head with MML access in Buxton would suddenly get them to consider rail distribution?

 

[yorksrob]

Ah, the Hazel Grove chord. Peter Fox would be able to tell a lot about that - and redoubling at Dore, his local station. Sadly he's no longer with us but he's left a few clues found here in the NARKIVE railway archive; https://uk.railway.narkive.com/2raOfFlr/hazel-grove-chord

Actually, 1930 - 1986 is a long run in for a project ! Could it be said to be the same project though !

There is certainly a massive problem with how national infrastructure (not just the railways) are managed slowing everything down, but be sure to compare apples with apples. When did the legal process for Dore actually start?

Milton Keynes, NR are regularly advertising for planners.

But your justification for why it would work is that it wouldn't be very busy, and therefore it would represent poor value for money.

They are, but they are about big bulk loads of people. What's the current AADT on the A6 between Matlock at Buxton?

Well Woodhead isn't reopening either, so this point is rather moot.

Ah, my justification isn't that "it wouldn't be very busy", I'm just pointing out that it wouldn't be as busy as the WCML. That's a big difference - there are probably lots of secondary routes that aren't as busy as the WCML.

Apologies - I don't know what AADT stands for.

I personally didn't bring up Woodhead, but in a narrative where pro-reopening voices are often characterised as crayonistas who want to reopen every line to every hamlet, it's sometimes worth looking at the varying merits of different cases.

Careers - Network Rail

Are you looking to do meaningful work everyday? Start a rewarding career with us. Search our current vacancies.

www.networkrail.co.uk

Its not just Matlock to Buxton though is it, even MEMRAP vaguely recognises its Ambergate to Manchester and the infrastructure hasn't been touched in 55 years apart from checking it won't collapse on anyone. It is a rebuild.

Well, Chinley to Manchester has two routes available, and whilst there ought to be some capacity improvements (the bit south of Longsight where the fast and slow lines cross over on the level) I think it's wrong to characterise that section as unchecked for 55 years and requiring a rebuild.

By the logic of the bit in bold, why be inhibited by a substandard route the Victorians built ? After all the route through the peaks was only built because the Midland wanted access to Manchester from the East Midlands - so if that's the rationale why, apart from entirely emotional reasons, push for this reopening ?

Why not promote a Buxton - Ashbourne - Derby line ? Or Leicester - Burton - Uttoxeter - Leek - Macclesfield - which completely avoids the national park and would provide direct connectivity from the East Midlands to Manchester ?

Why build a new line when you already have your tunnels (lots of them in this case) and viaduct in place ?

And lets face it, in a national park, a pre-existing railway is going to have more brownie points than a concrete new build.

 

[WAO]

That would require an upgrade of Chinley to Buxton via Peak Dale to passenger standards for barely any benefit.
Better to introduce connections with the fast Sheffield services stopping at Hazel Grove, if your goal is Sheffield connections.

.....about 10 route miles....Chapel gets a proper station...lots of new journeys possible....Hazel Grove a delightfully direct way to Sheffield from Buxton...if you stop the fast trains at HAZ (along with their other stops), can they still be "fasts?"

Just thoughts on a sunny day!

WAO

 

[A0wen]

I personally didn't bring up Woodhead, but in a narrative where pro-reopening voices are often characterised as crayonistas who want to reopen every line to every hamlet, it's sometimes worth looking at the varying merits of different cases.

And whilst I don't for a second believe it has a viable case, Woodhead probably has a better case than the Peak line.

Back in 1970 it was offering a journey time the same as the current fastest services via Hope Valley with more stops.

Sheffield is much more important than Derby and it would open up access from the east side of Manchester to Sheffield which currrently has 2 relatively slow roads (A628, A57) connecting them. Anyone driving from Manchester to Derby can do that on much faster roads - M56, M6, A50.

The line through the Peak District would add Bakewell to the national network and that's about it.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Apologies - I don't know what AADT stands for.

In context, 'AADT' most likely stands for Annual Average Daily Traffic, a measurement of just how busy a road is, calculated using the totals for the year, divided by 365.

 

[A0wen]

Why build a new line when you already have your tunnels (lots of them in this case) and viaduct in place ?

And lets face it, in a national park, a pre-existing railway is going to have more brownie points than a concrete new build.

Tunnels which may not have sufficient clearance for either modern freight or OHLE.

Viaducts which by virtue of the Victoruan construction methods used to build them require difficult and costly maintenance.

All through an Aera of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

If you want to build a modern transport system you don't do it by rebuilding substandard Victorian alignments. So basically you want this for nostalgic rather than practical reasons.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree that the railways that run through the Hope Valley could do with significant spending on them, but I'm not sure reopening to Bakewell is a reasonable capacity growth option. A ~1000m chord south of Chapel-en-le-Frith could allow a "proper" station for the village/town and also allow the slow Sheffield trains to run on the Buxton line instead. Although that would rather leave Chinley in an awkward position.

 

[The Planner]

Well, Chinley to Manchester has two routes available, and whilst there ought to be some capacity improvements (the bit south of Longsight where the fast and slow lines cross over on the level) I think it's wrong to characterise that section as unchecked for 55 years and requiring a rebuild.

You know exactly the part I was on about.

They are, but they are about big bulk loads of people. What's the current AADT on the A6 between Matlock at Buxton?

6500 at Ashford in the Water, with 170 being HGVs. So if you go off the general view of a train is 76 HGVs, its 2tpd, or probably 1tpd in each direction.

Road traffic statistics - Manual count point: 26160

roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk

 

[yorksrob]

In context, 'AADT' most likely stands for Annual Average Daily Traffic, a measurement of just how busy a road is, calculated using the totals for the year, divided by 365.

Aah, thank you.

You know exactly the part I was on about.

You could have said Ambergate to Chinley, but even part of that is a fully maintained, working railway.

The missing link really is a short section.

 

[The Planner]

The missing link really is a short section.

15 miles from Matlock to Millers Dale, ignoring all the other works needed from Ambergate to Chinley which is 30 miles.

 

[yorksrob]

15 miles from Matlock to Millers Dale, ignoring all the other works needed from Ambergate to Chinley which is 30 miles.

Indeed. A very short section.

 

[The Planner]

Indeed. A very short section.

Which again, based on the E-W rail section between Bicester and Bletchley costing £1.3 billion for 19 miles ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ting-officer-assessment-april-2021#regularity ) puts this at around £2 billion. The bit that everyone goes la la la about when scrabbling around for excuses to build it.