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

[Killingworth]

Maybe so - but the the virbation caused by a couple of hundred pedestrians and dozen cyclists and a couple of horses a day is miniscule compared to a couple of trains a day - and that vibration is the thing which would start to dislodge masonry or damage pointing for example.

To make a compelling business case you'd need to be planning for nearer 20 long trains a day, not 2. That's a lot of vibration and must be well beyond the level the line was originally designed for.

 

[yorksrob]

We are talking about structures and earthworks that were never built for 25-tonne axle loads in the first place and have been gradually degrading for over 50 years. Now we are expecting them to support millions of tonnes of limestone and cement per year at fairly high speeds from day one.
Have you seen how many rabbit warrens there are in the embankments?

Your expectations are quite off. An 0.08t load travelling at 2-3mph will impose negligible forces on a bridge compared to a 20t+ axle load travelling at 60mph.
The bridge carrying a footpath will make inspection easier than if it was completely closed, but that's about it.

There are thousands of these structures and earthworks on the national network that are maintained for rail traffic.

An existing structure can surely be brought up to speed.

 

[zwk500]

There are thousands of these structures and earthworks on the national network that are maintained for rail traffic.

An existing structure can surely be brought up to speed.

Yes, of course it can. For a cost.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, of course it can. For a cost.

Less a cost than building from new.

 

[zwk500]

Less a cost than building from new.

Not necessarily, and even less likely to be a significantly less cost than an old bridge that hadn't had a footbridge.

 

[yorksrob]

Not necessarily, and even less likely to be a significantly less cost than an old bridge that hadn't had a footbridge.

Well, if we accept these costs for existing lines, perhaps we ought to for reopened ones.

Because it doesn't. Swindon - Kemble was a bottleneck in its own right and prevented increasing services against passenger growth on that line which was being seen.

The schemes you usually peddle are for reinstatements of long dead lines with the "and they offer diversion options" where such options are not realisable for a benefits case and the scheme overall is a basket case.

Swindon - Kemble was fairly cheap in the scheme of things

£45m Swindon to Kemble redoubling completed

The £45 million upgrade of the Swindon-Kemble line has been completed

www.railmagazine.com

That was for 12 miles back in 2014 - but it shows the fundamental difference between upgrading an existing line and rebuilding a long defunct line - Swindon - Kemble being about £4m / mile, whereas the Borders Line cost more than double that (£350m / 35 miles = £10m a mile) and I'm pretty sure @Bald Rick will confirm the total cost of Borders was even higher.

This is absolute poppycock.

The schemes I support are primarily for providing new markets, such as mid-Devon (Tavistock and Okehampton) or the Uckfield line (mid-Sussex/Kent to the South coast.

Diversionary capabilities are just the cherry on the cake.

 

[HSTEd]

A lot of earthworks would have to be outright dismantled and rebuilt from scratch.

 

[A0wen]

This is absolute poppycock.

The schemes I support are primarily for providing new markets, such as mid-Devon (Tavistock and Okehampton) or the Uckfield line (mid-Sussex/Kent to the South coast.

Diversionary capabilities are just the cherry on the cake.

Well, no. Both are long dead lines and you usually cite "diversion" as a benefit, so you'll have to try harder.

As for "new" journey opportunities, I'm not sure Okehampton (popn 6k) and Tavistock (popn 13k) have huge demand for travel between them - the hourly bus more than suffices.

The Uckfield line doesn't really serve anywhere significant en route to Croydon - Crowborough is 20k - Edenbridge & Oxted are large villages. So where this supposed demand for travel south of Uckfield from places between Croydon and Uckfield comes from, I'm not sure.

And to get back to the topic, you've not demonstrated demand for travel between Matlock and Buxton either and certainly not enough to spend a couple of billion on a rail reopening which has yet to demonstrate a viable business case.

 

[Mr. SW]

Was much infrastructure trouble found when they reinstated the Borders Line? It was closed a little later than Matlock-Buxton.

Some bridges had to be reinstated, but was there any undue problem with the soft infrastructure?

This isn't an attempt at digression, just for comparison.

 

[Killingworth]

Was much infrastructure trouble found when they reinstated the Borders Line? It was closed a little later than Matlock-Buxton.

Some bridges had to be reinstated, but was there any undue problem with the soft infrastructure?

This isn't an attempt at digression, just for comparison.

Certainly not as many tunnels or bridges/viaducts on the Borders line

 

[daodao]

The schemes I support are primarily for providing new markets, such as mid-Devon (Tavistock and Okehampton) or the Uckfield line (mid-Sussex/Kent to the South coast.

I disagree. Along with the re-opening proposal discussed in this thread, these so-called "missing gaps" are the re-opening schemes of least value/benefit, because they are the "watersheds" between geographic economic areas where potential traffic is least. It is far more beneficial and cheaper just to re-open a section of a former through route providing local traffic links into a major conurbation rather than the middle section that is likely to be devoid of significant traffic.

In this case, the line from Buxton to Manchester. an alternative line from Chinley to Manchester, and the line from Matlock to Derby, were never closed, and the Manchester South District line has been re-opened as far as Parrs Wood as a Metrolink line. The case for re-opening from Matlock to Buxton/Chinley is very poor. Similarly, in the case of the former LSWR line from Exeter to Plymouth, Plymouth to Bere Alston was not closed, and there is reasonable potential to re-open as far as Tavistock; Exeter to Yeoford was not closed and the line has now been re-opened to Okehampton. However, the case for re-opening from Tavistock to Okehampton is also very poor.

 

[Killingworth]

I disagree. Along with the re-opening proposal discussed in this thread, these so-called "missing gaps" are the re-opening schemes of least value/benefit, because they are the "watersheds" between geographic economic areas where potential traffic is least. It is far more beneficial and cheaper just to re-open a section of a former through route providing local traffic links into a major conurbation rather than the middle section that is likely to be devoid of significant traffic.

In this case, the line from Buxton to Manchester. an alternative line from Chinley to Manchester, and the line from Matlock to Derby, were never closed, and the Manchester South District line has been re-opened as far as Parrs Wood as a Metrolink line. The case for re-opening from Matlock to Buxton/Chinley is very poor. Similarly, in the case of the former LSWR line from Exeter to Plymouth, Plymouth to Bere Alston was not closed, and there is reasonable potential to re-open as far as Tavistock; Exeter to Yeoford was not closed and the line has now been re-opened to Okehampton. However, the case for re-opening from Tavistock to Okehampton is also very poor.

I'm not in favour of re-opening a railway over the Monsal Trail however this digression does prompt a thought.

In the era of closures the Woodhead line was closed with the section to Hadfield retained. The Hope Valley route was kept open with an hourly through passenger service. The stopping service was cut in two, to Chinley or New Mills from Sheffield and similar from Manchester but infrequent. By 2010 rail recovery was well under way with 2 fast trains an hour and the stoppers running through almost hourly.

In 2013 the just completed capacity sheme was being promoted to create 4 fast paths plus a stopping and freight paths. By 2015 that was reduced to 3 fasts and now it's complete it still hasn't produced a 3rd fast service.

Two lessons from that.

The improved end to end service has attracted more stopping traffic, the overlap from both ends to Edale and Grindleford at its core. But the stopper is fulfilling much of the role of the missing 3rd fast service. This experience may give support to a reopened Peaks and Dales developing new traffic flows between Derby and Manchester

The current inabilty to feed an extra service into Manchester reminds that limited investment funding needs to be focussed where it's most needed - to assist services that are already running.

 

[daodao]

In the era of closures the Woodhead line was closed with the section to Hadfield retained. The Hope Valley route was kept open with an hourly through passenger service. The stopping service was cut in two, to Chinley or New Mills from Sheffield and similar from Manchester but infrequent.

The services in the Miller's Dale/New Mills/Chinley area pre-1967 basically comprised:

• Express services from Manchester Central to London, many of which called at Chinley (historically there were also connections into these trains at Chinley from Liverpool Central via Timperley and from Blackburn via Manchester Victoria) and/or Miller's Dale
• Local stopping services from Manchester Central to Chinley via Stockport Tiviot Dale
• Local stopping services from Chinley to Buxton, running to/from Manchester Central via Cheadle Heath at peak hours
• Local stopping services from Chinley to Matlock and Derby
• Local stopping services from Buxton to Miller's Dale, of which a few were extended to Derby
• Local stopping services from Chinley to Sheffield Midland
• Local stopping services (ex-GCR) from Manchester London Road via Reddish North and New Mills Central to Hayfield

There wasn't a regular through passenger service from Manchester to Sheffield via the Hope Valley line. The services on the remaining lines were completely re-organised with closure of the Midland main line via Didsbury and Peak Forest, the Woodhead line and the Hayfield branch, to all passenger traffic over the period 1967-1970. The creation of a through stopping service from Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield Midland via the Hope Valley line was an operating convenience to reduce the number of trains terminating at New Mills Central and allow Chinley station to be rationalised completely down to the mere halt that it is today.

 

[jimm]

Bit in bold - Moreton in Marsh (about halfway along the Cotswold Line) is 90 miles to London, whereas the full Derby - Manchester distance is only 60 miles (Derby - Matlock is circa 20 miles), so much of the Peak Line less again.

And Manchester is an economic "pull" in the same way London is.

I'm well aware of the distances involved. So what if it's 60 miles. Are people in Derby (or Matlock) suddenly going to start flocking to Manchester all the time should this railway reopen? I don't think so.

Try buying a house near one of the stations along the route. Plenty of full fare and first class tickets I imagine.



I listened to the Transport debates about this and am aware of the influence MP's from Oxfordshire and its environs have on policy.

I still think that there is a relative case for improvements here, short of relaying Bakewell - Peak Forest, and that passenger custom will follow, not preceed service quality.

WAO

Imagine whatever you like. As I said, people in this area aren't all made of money, me included. Like most other places, first class travel on the Cotswold Line has declined, as has peak commuter and business travel using full fare tickets, while off-peak and discounted travel is booming.

So MPs stood up in the Commons and made some noise and wrote letters to ministers. At the end of the day, the only thing that mattered was whether Network Rail could persuade the DfT that the business case stacked up.

The Network Rail analysis of the causes of GWML delays that I mentioned took place in 2007-8, about three years after NR had stated plain as day that it did not see any financial case for redoubling. Ultimately, the change of mind triggered by that analysis was what tipped the balance and made the case for the investment, not speeches by MPs.

 

[A0wen]

I'm well aware of the distances involved. So what if it's 60 miles. Are people in Derby (or Matlock) suddenly going to start flocking to Manchester all the time should this railway reopen? I don't think so.

You cited "proximity to London" as an explanation for the Cotswold Line usage, I pointed out Manchester is less of a distance, but the important part you overlooked were my previous posts where I'd compared the Cotswold Line usage to *The Hope Valley* line's current usage. If the Hope Valley doesn't achieve similar usage to the Cotswold line running through a similar area to the Peak Valley, despite connecting Manchester and Sheffield, I fail to see why the Peak Valley will attract usage.

 

[furnessvale]

A lot of earthworks would have to be outright dismantled and rebuilt from scratch.

Any evidence for that assertion? Sections of the proposed route, built to the same standards as the closed section, have continued in use for heavy freight trains to this day, with no significant expenditure on renewing earthworks etc.

Only a proper survey can confirm or deny that fact.

 

[A0wen]

Any evidence for that assertion? Sections of the proposed route, built to the same standards as the closed section, have continued in use for heavy freight trains to this day, with no significant expenditure on renewing earthworks etc.

Only a proper survey can confirm or deny that fact.

I'd have thought the Borders Railway - which was abandoned for a similar period of time would give some indication of the extent of works required - which was fairly extensive, certainly more than the reinstatement of the Blyth line for example.

 

[Killingworth]

I'd have thought the Borders Railway - which was abandoned for a similar period of time would give some indication of the extent of works required - which was fairly extensive, certainly more than the reinstatement of the Blyth line for example.

Each line will have its own characteristics. The Blyth line's level crossings were a nightmare for motorists 50 years ago. The new Newsham flyover must have added fairly extensive work to that project - on a line that was still active.