Do users need all this chat about Dore upgrade?

[HowardGWR]

This is from the Sheffield Star.

Members of the public are being invited to give their views on multi-million plans to upgrade the Sheffield to Manchester railway.

Work involves adding extra tracks at Grindleford and expanding Dore and Totley station.

Public consultation sessions take place at The Maynard hotel, Main Road, Grindleford, from 10am to 2pm and 4pm to 8pm today, and 10am to 2pm tomorrow and Saturday.

In Sheffield, the events take place at Abbeydale Sports Club, off Abbeydale Road South, on Thursday, November 14, between 10am and 2pm and 4pm to 8pm, and between 10am and 2pm on Friday and Saturday, November 15 and 16.

Members of the public will be able to view plans of the work and ask questions about the project.

The upgrade will allow the Hope Valley Railway to carry three express trains each hour between Sheffield and Manchester, as well as more trains serving local stations, which currently run just once every two hours on weekdays.

Apart from this interesting new ATOC member "The Hope Valley Railway", does the scheme involve anything outside the railway? Does anyone know why "consultation" thus has to take place? I'll bet there was no consultation when the facilities were taken away all those decades ago.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I suppose that the Dore and Totley station item will be of interest to some. That station used to have two platforms on the Grindleford line and two platforms on the Sheffield to Chesterfield line.

 

[Ironside]

I suppose it's a form of promoting the railway in the hope that the extra interest will lead to increased passenger use.

 

[tbtc]

Network Rail do seem to like to spend money on all of these "presentations" where members of the public can ask questions that are generally available on a website.

I suppose its good PR and they can tick a box or two, but can't see it chancing much/ anything.

 

[yorksrob]

It's potentially a way of bolstering the business and political case for the investment, so it's generally a good idea.

My only objection is that it should be a more comprehensive look at railway provision in the area which also look at reopening Matlock - Buxton as I fear that any large scale investment in the Hope Valley will weaken any business case for the reopening.

 

[HowardGWR]

Thanks to Yorkie for adding (substituting) the hyperlink. I don't know how to do those. Can it be done with an idiot facility here?

I just wondered whether it was a commitment under whatever legislation applies. I thought there might be a difference between the Transport Works laws and the Planning Laws.

 

[talltim]

I suppose Dore residents will be interested, not necessarily by the work itself (although it may effect those near the line), but on the effect it will have on the area. Parking at Dore has long been an issue, partly relieved by the new SYPTE car park, which wasn't without controversy itself. Better rail facilities would hopefully mean better services, bringing greater patronage and more cars

 

[The Planner]

The new loop at Grindleford requires to eat some of the national park if I understand it correctly, that is probably why.

 

[eastwestdivide]

The "horse's mouth" version (rather than the Star's take on it) from Network Rail here:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...il-capacity-on-the-Hope-Valley-line-1eed.aspx
with slightly more info including

The plans for the Grindleford area include a new section of track running alongside the existing railway through two cuttings and an embankment with modifications to the footbridge. At Dore, the railway line between West View Lane and Dore West Junction will be extended and a new platform constructed with a footbridge and lifts

and

A Transport and Works Act Order from the Secretary of State for Transport will be required to build the new sections of track. It is anticipated that an application will be submitted in spring 2014 following a period of consultation and, subject to consent, work will be complete by the end of 2018

 

[talltim]

Are there any plans of where the loops are proposed to be at Grindleford? I cant see any footbridges, just two occupation bridges

 

[IanD]

Gives the NIMBYs who bought houses close to the line a chance to complain about the extra noise these extra trains will make.

 

[swt_passenger]

Does anyone know why "consultation" thus has to take place? I'll bet there was no consultation when the facilities were taken away all those decades ago.

There seems to be a bit of a grey area about when, why or if they need TWA orders.

(I suspect for example that Chiltern scored a bit of an own goal in using TWA procedures, because only a small part of the Evergreen 3 Bicester-Oxford project is actually a new line, the chord at Bicester.)

In this case it might be that the passing loops are considered significant new work, and they are just lumping it all together. Re-instating a previous platform shouldn't in itself require permission, and adding lifts and footbridge where there wasn't one before ought to come under permitted development rights, where the local authority only gets a say over what it looks like. As in the case of 'access for all' works elsewhere...

 

[The Planner]

Presumably it is because that land take is required at Grindleford that NR don't currently own. The same issue has arisen at Huyton as there is a bit of land required that isn't NR.

The loop is from the 160 mile post to the 159¼ mile post on the up side.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Are there any plans of where the loops are proposed to be at Grindleford? I cant see any footbridges, just two occupation bridges

I guess by "footbridge" they meant "bridge carrying a footpath", the one slightly towards Hathersage (good spot for a photo with a semaphore)
Here (1), on Bing maps OS version

 

[IKBrunel]

I think these consultations are a good idea, they should given NR an indication of the strength of support/opposition for a scheme. Whether planning permission is required or a scheme is within permitted development rights, the consultation may identify problems which wouldn't otherwise be identified, thereby allowing design changes to be made at an early stage rather than later on when changes are costly.

Also the consultation approach does at least encourage some form of dialogue between NR and it's neighbours, without which you might get a more adversarial relationship which would be unhelpful to projects.

Finally the UK is a signatory to The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, usually known as the Aarhus Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhus_Convention

 

[edwin_m]

The new footbridge at Dore may overshadow nearby houses or worse still give a view into bedroom windows. Hopefully the consultation will assure residents that there is no problem of this type, but if there is NR will be made aware in time to change the design rather than risking objections at a later date when more money has been spent.

 

[dggar]

It's potentially a way of bolstering the business and political case for the investment, so it's generally a good idea.

My only objection is that it should be a more comprehensive look at railway provision in the area which also look at reopening Matlock - Buxton as I fear that any large scale investment in the Hope Valley will weaken any business case for the reopening.

Why Buxton, wouldn't make more sense to go to Chinley and on to Manchester, with may be a spur to Buxton.

 

[yorksrob]

Why Buxton, wouldn't make more sense to go to Chinley and on to Manchester, with may be a spur to Buxton.

Indeed. I was talking about the Matlock - Buxton corridoor, but would prefer the triangular Buxton junction to be reinstated so that both Chinley and Buxton could be served.

 

[Kettledrum]

It's potentially a way of bolstering the business and political case for the investment, so it's generally a good idea.

My only objection is that it should be a more comprehensive look at railway provision in the area which also look at reopening Matlock - Buxton as I fear that any large scale investment in the Hope Valley will weaken any business case for the reopening.

Regretably I don't think there is a business case for Matlock to Buxton and I don't think there is any political will to try and make one. There are 3 possible benefits of this route that could be explored:

1. Matlock to Buxton could provide a fast inter-city cross country strategic link between Manchester and the East Midlands, and further down the Midland Main Line. It could open up new passenger flows and be a great diversionary route like it once was. However, there is no interest or appetite for this from any of the TOCs, no huge demand from passengers.

2. Matlock to Buxton could serve local trains and tourists to small local stations in the peak district. However, the number of passengers would never generate enough funds to make a business case stack up.

3. Matlock to Buxton could be re-opened for freight use. Some of the gradients might prove tricky, and it would slow down any passenger trains, but it could link in with the new electric spine and make it easier to get freight from Southampton to Manchester and avoid the WCML. Not sure about guage clearance though.

I'm not sure how the Hope Valley line would make much of a dent in the potential passenger rail traffic for (1) and (2) above, and I'm not sure about the freight traffic either because Matlock to Buxton offers different and more direct routes.

 

[yorksrob]

Regretably I don't think there is a business case for Matlock to Buxton and I don't think there is any political will to try and make one. There are 3 possible benefits of this route that could be explored:

1. Matlock to Buxton could provide a fast inter-city cross country strategic link between Manchester and the East Midlands, and further down the Midland Main Line. It could open up new passenger flows and be a great diversionary route like it once was. However, there is no interest or appetite for this from any of the TOCs, no huge demand from passengers.

2. Matlock to Buxton could serve local trains and tourists to small local stations in the peak district. However, the number of passengers would never generate enough funds to make a business case stack up.

3. Matlock to Buxton could be re-opened for freight use. Some of the gradients might prove tricky, and it would slow down any passenger trains, but it could link in with the new electric spine and make it easier to get freight from Southampton to Manchester and avoid the WCML. Not sure about guage clearance though.

I'm not sure how the Hope Valley line would make much of a dent in the potential passenger rail traffic for (1) and (2) above, and I'm not sure about the freight traffic either because Matlock to Buxton offers different and more direct routes.

The local Council did a study in 2004 and concluded that there wasn't a business case. However, part of this rested on the fact that some of the route's passengers would be extracted from other routes (i.e. relief of the Hope Valley).

I don't think the Hope Valley comes anywhere near to 2 as it is in the wrong place. 1 - It's the Hope Valley that needs relieving anyway.

 

[Kettledrum]

The local Council did a study in 2004 and concluded that there wasn't a business case. However, part of this rested on the fact that some of the route's passengers would be extracted from other routes (i.e. relief of the Hope Valley).

I think the 2004 study was flawed in that the passenger traffic flows it looked at didn't consider the route as a potential for longer distance passenger traffic using the route. Just looking at passengers in the Manchester to Derby route and focussing on the Matlock to Buxton catchment areas would never generate enough passengers.

It might be able to wash it's face by being part of a longer cross country network with more direct journey opportunities such as Manchester/Buxton to Nottingham, Manchester/Buxton to Leicester and Buxton to London St Pancras.

This was not really considered because the County Council who commissioned the work were really interested in the potential for local traffic that would take cars off their roads - not new strategic direct journey opportunities.

Freight traffic projections seemed really pessimistic in the 2004 study, and little longer term thinking about what would happen when the Hope Valley Line had no more capacity was in it.

There are some interesting perspectives on the study in

http://transitionbuxton.co.uk/sites/default/files/all/Buxton Matlock Rail Inquiry.pdf

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is the existing TransPeak bus service from Matlock to Buxton not of a sufficiant frequency to serve the needs of the travelling public ?

 

[yorksrob]

I think the 2004 study was flawed in that the passenger traffic flows it looked at didn't consider the route as a potential for longer distance passenger traffic using the route. Just looking at passengers in the Manchester to Derby route and focussing on the Matlock to Buxton catchment areas would never generate enough passengers.

It might be able to wash it's face by being part of a longer cross country network with more direct journey opportunities such as Manchester/Buxton to Nottingham, Manchester/Buxton to Leicester and Buxton to London St Pancras.

This was not really considered because the County Council who commissioned the work were really interested in the potential for local traffic that would take cars off their roads - not new strategic direct journey opportunities.

Freight traffic projections seemed really pessimistic in the 2004 study, and little longer term thinking about what would happen when the Hope Valley Line had no more capacity was in it.

There are some interesting perspectives on the study in

http://transitionbuxton.co.uk/sites/default/files/all/Buxton Matlock Rail Inquiry.pdf

Many thanks for the link - I'll read it with interest.

I agree entirely with your point though. On the one hand we have a local Council which want's better links between it's towns. On the other hand, we have a national railway network which requires improvements on longer distance services South East from Manchester. Yet there is no planning process that seems to be able to make the leap to combine these ambitions.

NW - East Midlands connections could be improved by a better route, NW - South Yorkshire connections could be improved by more capacity on the Hope Valley, local connections could be improved within the peak district. Yet both the local council and national network are incapable of seeing beyond the end of their noses and bringing these benefits together to support the new route.

Madness.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is the existing TransPeak bus service from Matlock to Buxton not of a sufficiant frequency to serve the needs of the travelling public ?

I doubt it can serve local needs adequately and deliver improvements to the NW - East Midlands, NW - South Yorkshire rail corridoors as well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I doubt it can serve local needs adequately and deliver improvements to the NW - East Midlands, NW - South Yorkshire rail corridoors as well.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was just responding to the Matlock to Buxton posting...not any other matters, such as those you state in your quote above.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was just responding to the Matlock to Buxton posting...not any other matters, such as those you state in your quote above.

Ah, but it's all interlinked. This thread isn't strictly speaking, about Matlock - Buxton, it's about the Hope Valley - but I'm trying to look at things from a wider perspective rather than Matlock - Buxton, Hope Valley individually etc (It wasn't my post you were responding to, but I brought up the subject of Matlock - Buxton, so it's my fault it's mentioned if you like).

 

[Kettledrum]

Is the existing TransPeak bus service from Matlock to Buxton not of a sufficiant frequency to serve the needs of the travelling public ?

The needs of the travelling public is a great phrase, and depends what you mean by it.

In effect, the 2004 study sponsored by the County Council suggested that for the public of the peak district the answer was yes, so in that respect you are right.

However, increasingly people need to travel or commute wider afield for jobs, Re-opening the direct line to re-connect Derby and the East Midlands with Manchester and the North West would create extra travelling and commuting options and make a more flexible workforce. These wider economic benefits are really difficult to model in business cases, as you've no idea what the potential demand would be. The 2004 study struggled with this.

The Hope Valley line serves a different purpose with a different passenger market, but the Matlock to Buxton line would be competing for some of the same freight traffic. However, the freight operators comments to the 2011 inquiry at

http://transitionbuxton.co.uk/sites/default/files/all/Buxton Matlock Rail Inquiry.pdf


suggest there is a huge extra cost to them of sending freight from the peak district quarries north to the Hope Valley Line before heading south. There's a great quote at one point:

"the main advantage from an emissions point of view of reopening the railway for freight is that it’s down hill. If you’re going round by the Hope Valley, over to the Rother Valley and down the Erewash valley ‐ it’s bad enough for passenger trains, I hate to think how much extra fuel a stone train uses going up hill and down dale, whereas basically it could take the brakes off and just roll into Derby"

I understand there is limited scope for more freight on the Hope Valley line at the moment, but perhaps someone could confirm or correct me on that.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The Hope Valley line serves a different purpose with a different passenger market, but the Matlock to Buxton line would be competing for some of the same freight traffic.

I understand there is limited scope for more freight on the Hope Valley line at the moment, but perhaps someone could confirm or correct me on that.

Obviously the proposed loops are going to help with capacity regarding freight. I think they are also planning to install loop at Chinley.

Its worth remembering that the Hope Valley and Edale are very popular with walkers, especially in the summer and its a real pity that Derbyshire CC is not proactive in encouraging more people to use the train.

 

[yorksrob]

Obviously the proposed loops are going to help with capacity regarding freight. I think they are also planning to install loop at Chinley.

Its worth remembering that the Hope Valley and Edale are very popular with walkers, especially in the summer and its a real pity that Derbyshire CC is not proactive in encouraging more people to use the train.

Indeed, but why spend money on freight loops when you could put it towards something that can benefit existing passengers and open up new markets.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Indeed, but why spend money on freight loops when you could put it towards something that can benefit existing passengers and open up new markets.

For the simple reason that I'm afraid improving capacity on the Hope Valley is a more realistic target.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

However, increasingly people need to travel or commute wider afield for jobs, Re-opening the direct line to re-connect Derby and the East Midlands with Manchester and the North West would create extra travelling and commuting options and make a more flexible workforce. These wider economic benefits are really difficult to model in business cases, as you've no idea what the potential demand would be. The 2004 study struggled with this.

Noting what you say about longer distance commuting above, where you make mention of the East Midlands, a colleague of one of my sons who lives in Nottingham commutes to the city area of Manchester on a daily basis on EMT and the 0640 service he takes from Nottingham stops at Alfreton, Chesterfield, Dronfield, Sheffield, Dore & Totley, Chinley, Hazel Grove, Stockport and Manchester Picccadilly (arriving there at 0836).

You will see that there are a number of large settlements called at on that route where commuters into Manchester can be picked up. Obviously Derby is not part of this commuter pattern, but Derby is not an East Midlands area that was referred to.

The 2004 County Council study needs to be updated to reflect how matters are in late 2013/early 2014 and from this new starting date, can evaluate a future ten year period from now to 2024.