My idea for reopening Buxton-Matlock

[furnessvale]

Would you have rather the land had been sold off piecemeal to lots of local farmers and developers? I don't believe Sustrans would stand in the way of any serious transport scheme (which should be able to afford to build a parallel replacement trail anyway), but I can understand their reluctance to reliquish a popular leisure facility in the case of a small speculative heritage railway project in every case. Of course, apart from through tunnels perhaps, a low speed single track heritage operation is more suitable to coexist with a path on a former double track alignment.

At least three freight schemes have been abandoned when Sustrans refused to give the railway line back.

Their demand for a replacement cycle track in each case was unrealistic as each would have cost as much as a new railway formation, defeating the objective.

 

[6Gman]

There seems a great enthusiasm on here for splitting/ coupling trains en route.

Not exactly the way to achieve a robust timetable!

 

[AndrewE]

There seems a great enthusiasm on here for splitting/ coupling trains en route.

Not exactly the way to achieve a robust timetable!

It works in Belgium (or did when I was there last) and even in the South of England and I remember Bristol to Glasgow and Edinburgh trains, also Liverpool and Manchester to either, but maybe not both... The Belgian way with EMUs with gangway connections throughout gives 4 through journey options with 3 units but nly taking a single path through a possibly congested central section.

The only problem is that you have to be able to run your train service properly in the first place!

 

[Ianno87]

There seems a great enthusiasm on here for splitting/ coupling trains en route.

Not exactly the way to achieve a robust timetable!

Splitting/joining trains is de-rigeur in the south. But neither Stoke nor Stockport (as suggested) are particularly sensible places to do it, in my view.

 

[6Gman]

Splitting/joining trains is de-rigeur in the south. But neither Stoke nor Stockport (as suggested) are particularly sensible places to do it, in my view.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Your portion from A is running to time but your portion from B is 20" late.

What do you do? On Platform 3 (Down Fast) at Stockport?

 

[8H]

At least three freight schemes have been abandoned when Sustrans refused to give the railway line back.

Their demand for a replacement cycle track in each case was unrealistic as each would have cost as much as a new railway formation, defeating the objective.

I didn't realise that! Do you know which routes? Cheers. Surely they could be told to "behave" in terms of national infrastructure needs?

 

[Mugby]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Your portion from A is running to time but your portion from B is 20" late.

What do you do? On Platform 3 (Down Fast) at Stockport?

BR would have sent them on separately!

 

[AndrewE]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Your portion from A is running to time but your portion from B is 20" late.

What do you do? On Platform 3 (Down Fast) at Stockport?

I think 20" (seconds) is tolerable... if it had been 20' (minutes) then if a path (and a crew) is available then, as Mugby says, send it on (or couple it on to something else instead.)

 

[Greybeard33]

Although I'm not familiar with the pathing constraints between Stockport and Piccadily, there are a number of possible solutions that should be considered before writing off the idea.

1. one path may be freed up once HS2 is built.
2. if EMT ran this new Nottingham - Derby - Stoke - Manchester express service, could they join and split with the Sheffield train at Stockport, thereby only using one path into Manchester?
3. If XC ran this new service, could they join and split with one of their existing services at Stoke, thereby using an existing path between Stoke and Manchester for an 8 or 10 coach train instead of the existing 4 or 5 coach single unit.
4. If Northern ran this new service, they could use it as an extension of one of their existing services to Stoke...or perhaps even joining with one of their slow stopping services at Stockport, if there was a path between Stoke and Stockport.

Options 2-4 would rely on compatible rolling stock being available, but still much cheaper than trying to re-open Matlock to Buxton.

1: Maybe, if HS2 Phase 2b eventually happens and you can wait that long.
2/3: See post #64. Timings at Stockport and Stoke are far too tight for splitting/joining.
4: Maybe the Manchester - Stoke EMU stopper could be extended, if Stoke to Nottingham were electrified. But that service takes nearly an hour from Manchester to Stoke, not the 39 minutes of your previous post.

If a path can be found from Manchester to Stockport, why not run a direct express to Nottingham via the Hope Valley and the Dore South Curve? That could shave about 15 minutes off the current journey time, which would surely be quicker than running via Stoke.

I believe it has previously been suggested that pairs of fast trains (one to Sheffield, the other to the E Midlands) could be "flighted" through the Hope Valley, still leaving paths for the stopper and freight.

 

[yorksrob]

I believe it has previously been suggested that pairs of fast trains (one to Sheffield, the other to the E Midlands) could be "flighted" through the Hope Valley, still leaving paths for the stopper and freight.

If this is a solution, how comes they've been planning freight loops all this time ? That alone suggests to me that there's an underlying capacity problem that can't be solved just with flighting.

Also you lose those benefits for local transport within the peak district that would also come with reopening.

 

[DanTrain]

I believe it has previously been suggested that pairs of fast trains (one to Sheffield, the other to the E Midlands) could be "flighted" through the Hope Valley, still leaving paths for the stopper and freight.

I can't help thinking that there would then be demand for the Notts train to stop at some of Hope, Hathersage or even Dore (with a new platfrom on South Curve). Otherwise, a path is lost down a very congested line with no benefit to the area whatsoever. Also, as is pointed out below, there is very limited capacity here, passing loops would, of course, help, but not solve the problem.

 

[Mugby]

I can't even remember where the supposed passing loops were proposed to be, but wouldn't it be worth looking at re-instating the quadruple track between New Mills South Junction and Chinley, given that the former trackbed of the removed lines survives untouched?

 

[70014IronDuke]

Would you have rather the land had been sold off piecemeal to lots of local farmers and developers? ...

Arguably, yes! In truth, I don't know in which cases Sustrans have managed to stop the redevelopment of rail routes, but from the way people have written in here, once they've got their hands on former railway land, Sustrans is an absolute menace to rail redevelopment.

I don't believe Sustrans would stand in the way of any serious transport scheme (which should be able to afford to build a parallel replacement trail anyway),

Why should the railway have to do this - if it was not part of the original contract? And if it was, arguably it should not have been!

... but I can understand their reluctance to reliquish a popular leisure facility in the case of a small speculative heritage railway project in every case. Of course, apart from through tunnels perhaps, a low speed single track heritage operation is more suitable to coexist with a path on a former double track alignment.

If they signed a contract which says they should hand back land for rail redevlopment if required, then that is what they should be held to. No ifs and buts. Otherwise, the message seems to be, keep Sustrans off.

Of course, if I've falsely interpreted the reports of their past dealings, I'd be happy to be corrected.

 

[70014IronDuke]

So, to summarise:

Liverpool - Norwich would save x minutes running this way, but would no longer serve Sheffield (or Chesterfield) but could serve Derby....

Worth it?

Well, if routed that way, the current EMT service WOULD serve Derby. But I didn't think this was one of the original ideas in the OP's vision.

If Nottingham - Manchester - Liverpool services need speeding up (which clearly would make them more attractive for through passengers) the obvious move would be to omit the Sheffield double back.

But that is both a blessing and a curse, because - as you point out - it means a reduction in connectivity for Sheffield, unless an other service to Manchester were introduced to cover this gap. And then you have pathing problems for an additional service!

In fact, I suspect routing via Derby and Matlock would actually be slower than routing the current service via Dore South - and might even be slower than the current routing - but that would depend upon the stopping patterns and designed line speed of any reopened Peak Forest route, naturally.

 

[yorksrob]

If you were to rebuild the route to mainline standards, there's no reason why timings couldn't be favourable. After all, the existing service has to fit in freight and passengers.

 

[furnessvale]

Of course, if I've falsely interpreted the reports of their past dealings, I'd be happy to be corrected.

You haven't. Three I know of, are reopening to Wenford Dries, a branch to Rugby cement works and another link in Gloucestershire, the details of which escape me at the moment.

I know that with 2 of these, the plant in question has since closed but the requests for the return of the line predated the closures. Who knows, the inability to get the line back may have hastened the closures!

I believe there are at least a couple more. Note, nobody is talking about reopening major through routes, but essential stuff for railfreight development nevertheless.

 

[lejog]

Arguably, yes! In truth, I don't know in which cases Sustrans have managed to stop the redevelopment of rail routes, but from the way people have written in here, once they've got their hands on former railway land, Sustrans is an absolute menace to rail redevelopment.

Why should the railway have to do this - if it was not part of the original contract? And if it was, arguably it should not have been!

If they signed a contract which says they should hand back land for rail redevlopment if required, then that is what they should be held to. No ifs and buts. Otherwise, the message seems to be, keep Sustrans off.

Of course, if I've falsely interpreted the reports of their past dealings, I'd be happy to be corrected.

I don't believe Sustrans played a major part in establishing the Monsal Trail, they certainly don't own the land. The trail was developed by the Peak District National Park Authority, who own the land between Bakewell and Wyedale. The land east of Bakewell is in private ownership, IIRC Haddon Hall, the owners of which are highly resistant to extension of the Trail, let alone a railway. I have no idea why Sustrans have been brought into this discussion.

It is easy to say that the railway should not have sold off the land, but the truth is British Rail sold off land to the highest bidder or gave it away at a minimal price to reduce maintenance costs. At the time you would have been laughed at for suggesting that interest in the land should be maintained.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well, if routed that way, the current EMT service WOULD serve Derby. But I didn't think this was one of the original ideas in the OP's vision.

If Nottingham - Manchester - Liverpool services need speeding up (which clearly would make them more attractive for through passengers) the obvious move would be to omit the Sheffield double back.

That would save about 16 minutes, which is significant.

If it helps with pathing problems, and the signalling was up to it: Why not simply run a proposed Nottingham/Norwich train via the existing line, but which omits Sheffield, just a few minutes before or after an extra hourly fast Sheffield train. Since the trains would have different destinations, doing that would be fine from the point of view of passengers. It might need some signalling upgrades but would be less likely to require any additional track.

I do suspect that timing-wise, a train that runs via Dore but skips Sheffield could be roughly as fast as one that goes via a new Bakewell line, as in terms of mileage both routes would be very similar. The main advantage of via Bakewell is the ability to also serve Derby without going far out of the way. Going via Stoke, as has been suggested, would be much more indirect, but I assume that would be compensated for by higher linespeeds north of Stoke.

 

[6Gman]

I think 20" (seconds) is tolerable... if it had been 20' (minutes) then if a path (and a crew) is available then, as Mugby says, send it on (or couple it on to something else instead.)

I meant 20 minutes.

 

[johnnychips]

I really don't see this happening. Apart from the massive costs of renovating the infrastructure to make a fast line again - because a slow line would defeat the object - so much money has been invested in the Monsal Trail. The tunnels have been opened, made safe and illuminated, allowing walkers, cyclists, horse riders and disabled people access to some of the most excellent non-glaciated limestone scenery in the country. People have been accustomed to using this, and a replacement route with access to all these user groups would be very problematic, and meet with tremendous resistance.

Whilst the current times from Manchester to Derby, involving one change, are not wonderful, they are not terrible. I think it would be better and a lot cheaper, if money permitted, to increase capacity on the Hope Valley route by installing passing loops and using the curve at Dore.

 

[yorksrob]

I really don't see this happening. Apart from the massive costs of renovating the infrastructure to make a fast line again - because a slow line would defeat the object - so much money has been invested in the Monsal Trail. The tunnels have been opened, made safe and illuminated, allowing walkers, cyclists, horse riders and disabled people access to some of the most excellent non-glaciated limestone scenery in the country. People have been accustomed to using this, and a replacement route with access to all these user groups would be very problematic, and meet with tremendous resistance.

Whilst the current times from Manchester to Derby, involving one change, are not wonderful, they are not terrible. I think it would be better and a lot cheaper, if money permitted, to increase capacity on the Hope Valley route by installing passing loops and using the curve at Dore.

This post is all about the cyclists.

If they were going to create an obstacle, they shouldn't have been allowed on the trackbed in the first place.

These people should have been conserving the route for future reopening, not destroying it for their own ends. How is this any better than a farmer building a barn over the trackbed ?

 

[8H]

This post is all about the cyclists.

If they were going to create an obstacle, they shouldn't have been allowed on the trackbed in the first place.

These people should have been conserving the route for future reopening, not destroying it for their own ends. How is this any better than a farmer building a barn over the trackbed ?

Correct! Weren't initial contracts drafted to move them off if the routes were required again ? I have never understood their apparent omnipotence, and sometime obduracy when asked to release tracked. They aren't gods, they are just a land owning cycle pressure group!

 

[70014IronDuke]

I can't even remember where the supposed passing loops were proposed to be, but wouldn't it be worth looking at re-instating the quadruple track between New Mills South Junction and Chinley, given that the former trackbed of the removed lines survives untouched?

Nobody seems to have commented on this suggestion - which on the surface would appear a sensible idea. Any 'buts' out there?

 

[70014IronDuke]

If you were to rebuild the route to mainline standards, there's no reason why timings couldn't be favourable. After all, the existing service has to fit in freight and passengers.

I'm not so sure. Ambergate - Chinley was not a fast route when it was a main line. Higher power/weight ratios of current trains would help the hill climbing and acceleration, but I have my doubts it would provide any timings advantage over the current route via Chesterfield.

I think any case for reopening the route should be based on its intrinsic traffic potential (ie Leicester/Loughborough/Derby - an let's not forget the sizeable town of Belper) and not include plans to divert Norwich - Liverpool trains this way. Unless, for any reason, EMT were screaming to do so, I get the impression that service works quite well.

 

[Kettledrum]

Whilst the current times from Manchester to Derby, involving one change, are not wonderful, they are not terrible.

Yes they are terrible. The distance as the crow flies is 50 miles.

There used to be a direct train service between the two cities, and we closed it.

Connectivity between Manchester and the East Midlands is very poor, making regular commuting between the two areas impractical. This hampers economic development.

In many other countries, this would simply not be good enough.

HS2 will provide the good folk of Derby and the East Midlands with great connections to the West Midlands, London and also South Yorkshire - but not Manchester.

....and we're only missing around 20 miles of track!

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not so sure. Ambergate - Chinley was not a fast route when it was a main line. Higher power/weight ratios of current trains would help the hill climbing and acceleration, but I have my doubts it would provide any timings advantage over the current route via Chesterfield.

I think any case for reopening the route should be based on its intrinsic traffic potential (ie Leicester/Loughborough/Derby - an let's not forget the sizeable town of Belper) and not include plans to divert Norwich - Liverpool trains this way. Unless, for any reason, EMT were screaming to do so, I get the impression that service works quite well.

You say that the current service works well, which it does - to an extent, yet there is clearly an issue with capacity on the Hope Valley, otherwise the passing loops wouldn't have been proposed.

Other posters on here have mentioned timings in steam days that were decent enough, therefore I don't think I can agree with your assertion that the route would be so slow as to be uncompetitive.

I also think it's self imposed folly to discard potential longer distance links in a route which would provide the shortest distance between the East Midlands and Greater Manchester.

 

[8H]

Manchester Central to Derby 60 miles

Times approx 30 mins Chinley, 45 minutes Millers Dale, 65 mins Matlock, and 90 mins to Derby.

From BR LM timetable 1966.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Manchester Central to Derby 60 miles

Times approx 30 mins Chinley, 45 minutes Millers Dale, 65 mins Matlock, and 90 mins to Derby.

From BR LM timetable 1966.

Thanks. I actually thought it was about 90 mins, but didn't want to open my big mouth and get it wrong!

So, 90 mins for 60 miles back then - not exactly scintillating timings, YorksRob, is it? This was in diesel days too. I think steam took about 105 minutes, BTW.

Please note, however, I'm not against re-opening the line - I'm all for it if there is a half-decent business case - I merely doubt that trying to divert Norwich-Liverpool services that way will help your case from a timings point of view. Capacity issues are another matter - but remember, if you can reopen via Peak Forest, for the current EMT service to be divereted, you still have to get to/from Nottingham to Derby to Ambergate - and that means capacity issues and solving conflicts at Trent, Derby and Ambergate. (Plus, of course, beyond Chinley)

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks. I actually thought it was about 90 mins, but didn't want to open my big mouth and get it wrong!

So, 90 mins for 60 miles back then - not exactly scintillating timings, YorksRob, is it? This was in diesel days too. I think steam took about 105 minutes, BTW.

Please note, however, I'm not against re-opening the line - I'm all for it if there is a half-decent business case - I merely doubt that trying to divert Norwich-Liverpool services that way will help your case from a timings point of view. Capacity issues are another matter - but remember, if you can reopen via Peak Forest, for the current EMT service to be divereted, you still have to get to/from Nottingham to Derby to Ambergate - and that means capacity issues and solving conflicts at Trent, Derby and Ambergate. (Plus, of course, beyond Chinley)

Mugby suggested that the fastest times were around 1 hour twenty two minutes, and that was doubtless with a modernisation plan era loco and a rake of Mk1's.

I expect with a modern unit, you could get this down to a more respectable time.

 

[Senex]

Mugby suggested that the fastest times were around 1 hour twenty two minutes, and that was doubtless with a modernisation plan era loco and a rake of Mk1's.

I expect with a modern unit, you could get this down to a more respectable time.

In 1962 the Midland Pullman was allowed 72 minutes from leaving Manchester Central to passing Derby North Jn, including a 1½-minute stop at Cheadle Heath and 4 minutes recovery time.