Restoration of the Peak Line

[yorksrob]

I'm a (retired) train planner. I looked at the ideas suggested the last time it came up on here. Found them very difficult to achieve.

Part of the problem being that the proponents seem to think it could be done in a limited fashion (e.g. to allow dual use with the Monsal Trail) while also being able to provide long-distance services, local stoppers, services to/from both Manchester and Buxton, and freight.

That's true. There would need to be a full two-track railway for the full benefit.

 

[Pigeon]

All you do is increase the inefficiencies and create pinch points in different places. You seem unable to comprehend why that's a problem.

It's not a new problem; it's not making a problem that doesn't exist, it's merely emphasising a problem which exists already - lack of capacity at critical points. Any increase in potential capacity elsewhere will encounter the same problem, of needing to get more trains through such critical points. That cannot be allowed to stand as an argument against works to improve capacity on routes feeding those points, otherwise we are forever stuck with the overall capacity arbitrarily restricted to whatever limit the present state of those points imposes. Sorting them out is a need imposed by any kind of intention to increase rail capacity and usefulness, not something unique to a particular proposal.

The original builders of the railways of course also had to deal with these same problems when they put a new line in - they did not invariably consider a new line as an isolated entity, a kind of optional extra which they could simply "drop in" to an unmodified existing network and have it Just Work like sticking more RAM in a motherboard; rather they considered it as what it was - one part of a generalised aim of improving their capacity, of which other parts included the improvements needed elsewhere to allow the new line to be properly useful. It may have taken them quite a long time to get all the parts sorted out, and in some cases they never managed it, but they did understand that it was something they needed to do. The long-drawn-out saga of the Midland's various works to improve their capacity to Manchester, of which the Peak route is an episode, is a noteworthy example.

Because the original railway builders did deal with these problems, in very many cases the reason we are now encountering them again is simply because some divot ripped all the original solution out again and rogered the capacity, merely because they didn't happen to be running very many trains over it at the time so they figured they could destroy everything and make sure they could never run any greater number of trains over it in the future. So in their present form, the problems are artificially created; and the solution is obvious, though admittedly there are also cases where it has been artificially made harder to carry out by some complete and utter cretin flogging the land off to be built on and make double sure they'd permanently destroyed it.

The Manchester area is a particular example, where the infrastructure was gradually and painfully built up to overcome the bottlenecks and limitations that were encountered, then much of it was ripped out in an orgy of destruction which introduced new bottlenecks in what remained, and now the place is bursting at the seams with constant calls for more capacity in all directions but not enough room for any new trains to go when they get there. The old Midland network is in similar case; a system which once provided four or more tracks (via four-track main lines, more than one route, or both) to all the major population centres along the northern half of the M1, plus Manchester, can now only provide a fraction of the service it ought to be capable of, not because the trains can't go fast enough - they're fine once they can get going - but because things like spartan and threadbare junction and station layouts, and reduction of multiple tracking, won't let them get out of each other's way well enough. These are not inherent problems which preclude any useful reinstatement of the Peak route; rather, they share with the Peak route a common membership of a set of problems which already need to be solved, with the aim of increasing capacity and restoring capacity which has been lost, and by comparison the Peak route is a fairly minor member of that set.

And if a new freight line is needed, the find a decent formation, not a rehash of a suboptimal Victorian one with gradients, curves which goes through tourist areas.

Like the Settle and Carlisle...?

The worst gradients on that route are all on the bit that still exists, up from Miller's Dale over the top at Peak Forest and down the other side to Chinley, which is nearly all 1 in 90. So the freight trains are already having to cope with the worst gradients on the route that they'll ever encounter, no matter what happens; and since Peak Forest is where the stone traffic comes from, the loaded trains are going in the easy direction.

The gradients on the closed section are mostly around 1 in 100 - which is the same as the ruling gradient on the Hope Valley line, and the gradients turning left at Chinley aren't much shallower, with a lot at 1 in 100 or 1 in 132. So basically it makes no difference whichever way you go, closed or open. Considering Hindlow as well, it actually makes things slightly better, since trains from Hindlow to the south would no longer have to thrash up and over Peak Forest summit to get out as they do at present.

Similarly with curvature - all the surrounding routes are also "Victorian routes with gradients and curves". Indeed, with a handful of exceptions like Brunel's GW all the routes in the country are Victorian routes with gradients and curves. I can't take that seriously as an argument that such a route wouldn't work when we have such an extensive degree of demonstration that it does.

 

[Killingworth]

There are plenty of options for improving public transport links into Bakewell, but I don't see why driving a railway from Matlock through to Buxton is particularly useful.

I could see the argument for extending the line to Bakewell, but even that is likely to wreck the Monsal trail unless done extremely carefully.

I would suggest a ropeway connection from Matlock railway station for the 11km to Bakewell, but that might just get me laughed at!

As Peak Rail are operating a single track from Matlock almost to Rowsley the ropeway can be limited to Rowsley to Bakewell. There's already a path sharing the old trackbed alongsde the railway for most, but not all, of that operating stretch.

One major obstacle to restoration is the demolished bridge acoss the A6 at Rowsley. To meet modern standards a higher road clearance is necessary. That requires raising the embankments on both sdes and that isn't over a short stretch. On the west side thst probably needs rebuilding or replacement of the old bridge across tbe River Derwent immediately adjacent and a bridge over a minor road.

Unfortunately this is just one example of many details that add to tbe difficulties when restoring 21st Century rail services to 19th Century infrastructure that's had minimal, if any, maintenance for over 50 years. There's a lot of work likely to be needed from Ambergate to Matlock just to upgrade the currently operational single track section before tackling the lifted section. Walk the whole route and you may see the practical challenges, appreciate the work needed and think more about the cost.

I'll leave others to consider electrification implications.

 

[mailbyrail]

I attended the event MEMRAP hosted in Darley Dale recently. There was a healthy turnout of people, some from Peak Rail, others were from environmental groups and interested locals.
The suggested line has been simmering in the background for many years and getting little practical support. It seems the original proposal for the reinstatement of the railway had encountered opposition from the many users of the popular Monsal Trail and the thrust of the MEMRAP idea now focusses heavily on the 3-word 'Rail + Trail' slogan.
There was no hint as to how this would be possible without rerouting either the trail or the double track railway track except that the two were compatible. The suggestion that there would be any freight was very much glossed over in the presentation, except it would fit in with the fast passenger trains and the stopping trains. The stopping trains would be specially built for the line with bicycle carriages to accommodate the regular numbers of cyclists on the trail. Walkers and cyclists would be well served with stops such as Great Longstone and Monsal Dale, not to mention Bakewell. MEMRAP envisaged heritage operations would be possible alongside heavy rail. Various questions from the floor, many of them sceptical, were noted by the presenters, presumably so they could be addressed in future plans.
Unless the group get some substance to their dreams then this will continue to go round in circles although they will use these meetings to demonstrate that they have consulted widely to justify their claims.

 

[yorksrob]

As expected, no answer to how we keep the Monsall Trail open alongside the four track line required for Liverpool - Norwich expresses, local stoppers and slow/heavy freight trains

Funny (but not surprising)



Always good to see “useful”, that catch all justification for “I want it but I can’t find any facts or a good business case, so I’ll hide behind some nebulous word”





Removing the Liverpool - Norwich service wouldn’t be robbing Sheffield?

What space at Manchester for an additional service, if the Bakewell Express takes the existing path?




I’ve consistently backed the good reopenings.

But then you’ve moaned that shortish routes from satellite towns to the nearest big city (Ashington to Newcastle, for example, Tavistock to Plymouth, Gorebridge to Edinburgh, Portishead to Bristol) are just “stubs” and that a mega-project through a huge area of empty countryside would be more “useful”

However there’s no reason why the future must be a function of the past. I backed Crossrail, I back HS2, I back building lines into new areas (like central Skelmersdale) or stations that aren’t direct copies of Victorian ones (like White Rose Centre).

I try to look at problems and then find solutions to them








I look forward to seeing how you fit this new curve in so that trains can reverse at the existing Buxton station



Yes, the existing short DMUs could be extended

But as nobody is extending them it’d be easier to spend a billion pounds on a line through fairly empty countryside instead?

Good luck getting that through the Treasury !



You won’t get an answer, of course, but it’sa good question… sadly some people are too fixated with their 19th Century Track Atlas rather than looking at 21st Century travel patterns

Really, you support Tavistock to Plymouth !

Make a note of that.

 

[The Planner]

(have they actually planned the affected areas ?)

Yes.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes.

Have they planned a full double travk railway with the opportunities provided ?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I attended the event MEMRAP hosted in Darley Dale recently. There was a healthy turnout of people, some from Peak Rail, others were from environmental groups and interested locals.
The suggested line has been simmering in the background for many years and getting little practical support. It seems the original proposal for the reinstatement of the railway had encountered opposition from the many users of the popular Monsal Trail and the thrust of the MEMRAP idea now focusses heavily on the 3-word 'Rail + Trail' slogan.

Is not financial support also a rather important matter of consideration as an adjunct to aspirational line expansion and would that be a reason why, as you state above, "getting little practical support".

 

[The Planner]

Have they planned a full double travk railway with the opportunities provided ?

No as no one has asked us to as its not a serious proposition with money behind it. And having planned both sides of the line in my time, there is little extra you are going to get into Picc.

 

[zwk500]

Have these two train planners conducted a survey of the proposal ?

No, because it's never got as far as a serious proposal.

Are these two train planners the only two train planners on this forum (have they actually planned the affected areas ?)

We're not the only planners on the forum, but I definitely have planned the areas, and @The Planner has confirmed he has as well.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

One of the major problems with the line was the sharp curvature and stiff gradients, giving some very pedestrian overall timings. After closure, St. Pancras to Manchester Piccadilly services continued to be provided via the Dore South Curve (diminishing in number until complete withdrawal in 1975).
Despite being about 10 miles longer than the Bakewell route, Derby to Manchester timings were the same or faster. Maybe there is some merit in reopening the line for the stone traffic to relieve pressure on the Hope Valley, but it is certainly not an express route.

 

[yorksrob]

No as no one has asked us to as its not a serious proposition with money behind it. And having planned both sides of the line in my time, there is little extra you are going to get into Picc.

Well, no one's tried, so what can you expect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2023 ==

No, because it's never got as far as a serious proposal.

We're not the only planners on the forum, but I definitely have planned the areas, and @The Planner has confirmed he has as well.

Well, how can you accuse me of ignoring all the serious studies of potential services on the proposed route if they have not been done ?

 

[Killingworth]

In an earlier discussion freight was raised. The video I posted at #60 shows empty wagons arriving from Toton and Barrow Hill as there's not enough room at the quarries and in the Buxton area to hold them. Dr Hoo has pointed out that there's no practical way to get them to and from the quarries using the Peak line.

In answer to that point mission creep comes in. They've thought of that. Apart from the A610 it would be easy to reinstate the Ambergate chord (Ambergate used to have a triangular junction with platforms on both lines) to allow trains to go north for Barrow Hill. The A610 went below the chord on a now demolished rail bridge that was probably not high enough to meet modern vehicle clearance standards.

There's no avoiding Derby if going to Toton - except by using the Hope Valley route, or using the Ambergate chord and reversing near Chesterfield!

All these awkward details are surmountable, feasible, but at a cost that makes the whole scheme ever less financially viable.

 

[6Gman]

I attended the event MEMRAP hosted in Darley Dale recently. There was a healthy turnout of people, some from Peak Rail, others were from environmental groups and interested locals.
The suggested line has been simmering in the background for many years and getting little practical support. It seems the original proposal for the reinstatement of the railway had encountered opposition from the many users of the popular Monsal Trail and the thrust of the MEMRAP idea now focusses heavily on the 3-word 'Rail + Trail' slogan.
There was no hint as to how this would be possible without rerouting either the trail or the double track railway track except that the two were compatible. The suggestion that there would be any freight was very much glossed over in the presentation, except it would fit in with the fast passenger trains and the stopping trains. The stopping trains would be specially built for the line with bicycle carriages to accommodate the regular numbers of cyclists on the trail. Walkers and cyclists would be well served with stops such as Great Longstone and Monsal Dale, not to mention Bakewell. MEMRAP envisaged heritage operations would be possible alongside heavy rail. Various questions from the floor, many of them sceptical, were noted by the presenters, presumably so they could be addressed in future plans.
Unless the group get some substance to their dreams then this will continue to go round in circles although they will use these meetings to demonstrate that they have consulted widely to justify their claims.

Would it be unfair of me to fear that they don't really have a practical plan of how they could make this work ?

 

[yorksrob]

Would it be unfair of me to fear that they don't really have a practical plan of how they could make this work ?

There's no practical plan of how the current set-up works. It's an accident of history.

 

[6Gman]

There's no practical plan of how the current set-up works. It's an accident of history.

But nobody is lobbying to create what we currently have, because it's what we currently have.

If somebody is suggesting spending tens of millions+ on a scheme it would he helpful if they could outline why.

(And that includes saying how it would work.)

 

[yorksrob]

But nobody is lobbying to create what we currently have, because it's what we currently have.

If somebody is suggesting spending tens of millions+ on a scheme it would he helpful if they could outline why.

(And that includes saying how it would work.)

Well, that seems to be what the local promotional organisation are trying to do.

Unfortunately, the current industry has no remit to expand the network. This has to be promoted by third parties.

 

[The Planner]

Well, no one's tried, so what can you expect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2023 ==



Well, how can you accuse me of ignoring all the serious studies of potential services on the proposed route if they have not been done ?

You don't need to try to have a good overall understanding of the high level impacts, implications and dependencies. If this has legs, which it doesnt, then either NR will be remitted to look at it or they will go it alone and get a consultant to look at it. Presumably they have the cash and backing to do so if they are serious. The fact nothing has been done so far apart from speculative "oh but it will do this" is telling. It hasnt even got the groundings for a strategic outline business case yet, let alone anything further.

 

[yorksrob]

You don't need to try to have a good overall understanding of the high level impacts, implications and dependencies. If this has legs, which it doesnt, then either NR will be remitted to look at it or they will go it alone and get a consultant to look at it. Presumably they have the cash and backing to do so if they are serious. The fact nothing has been done so far apart from speculative "oh but it will do this" is telling. It hasnt even got the groundings for a strategic outline business case yet, let alone anything further.

This is nonsense.

NR won't do anything until it has been instructed to do so.

There's not been high level political backing for this scheme, so nothings been done.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is nonsense. NR won't do anything until it has been instructed to do so.

There's not been high level political backing for this scheme, so nothings been done.

There have been political parties of blue and of red persuasion in power since the line in question took on its current status quo, so does anyone on this thread expect that an aspirational Damascene moment will suddenly come down over the Palace of Westminster?

 

[The Planner]

This is nonsense.

NR won't do anything until it has been instructed to do so.

There's not been high level political backing for this scheme, so nothings been done.

Why is that nonsense? If there isnt the backing or political will to do it or NR doesnt believe its needed as part of a route study etc, then why is anything going to be done? If a third party wants to investigate it as part of their desire to reopen it then they can fill their boots if they have the funds.

 

[yorksrob]

There have been political parties of blue and of red persuasion in power since the line in question took on its current status quo, so does anyone on this thread expect that an aspirational Damascene moment will suddenly come down over the Palace of Westminster?

Not really, although for his faults, Boris has at least got some reopenings underway.

Why is that nonsense? If there isnt the backing or political will to do it or NR doesnt believe its needed as part of a route study etc, then why is anything going to be done? If a third party wants to investigate it as part of their desire to reopen it then they can fill their boots if they have the funds.

Those against the reopening are on the one hand saying "what about all of those knowledgeable professionals who've looked into this in detail and found that there's nothing doing" and on the other "there's no point in doing a detailed study because we just know, and there's no political will anyway".

Which is it chaps !

Pathing issues do need looking at in detail because it's a complicated business. You can't just assume there are no solutions.

 

[The Planner]

Those against the reopening are on the one hand saying "what about all of those knowledgeable professionals who've looked into this in detail and found that there's nothing doing" and on the other "there's no point in doing a detailed study because we just know, and there's no political will anyway".

Which is it chaps !

Pathing issues do need looking at in detail because it's a complicated business. You can't just assume there are no solutions.

No one had said that, I am saying there is no official desire or backing to take another look at it, just sound bites. There are no assumptions to even start with another investigation.

We also know train planning is a complicated business as it pays our mortgages! but we also know that you can immediately form a view from experience and knowledge about what the issues will likely be which in a lot of cases cause people proposing these schemes to go "la la la, we can't hear you" as it doesn't fit their narrative.

 

[zwk500]

Those against the reopening are on the one hand saying "what about all of those knowledgeable professionals who've looked into this in detail and found that there's nothing doing" and on the other "there's no point in doing a detailed study because we just know, and there's no political will anyway".

They've looked into the economics in detail and worked out that no matter what you do, it'll be worse for the overall economy than the current status quo. Therefore there's no point spending £100K+ on detailed engineering designs, which you would need to do to get TRTs with which you could build a concept timetable, the modelling for which would itself cost £80K+

Pathing issues do need looking at in detail because it's a complicated business. You can't just assume there are no solutions.

Any project needs to identify the following things, in order: Economic basis > Funding > Detailed Technical Design > Operational design (Timetables, Stock, drivers etc). Peak rail hasn't even got as far as funding.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think this might be the first thread on this subject for a while. At least that I can remember!

I will make only two points.

1) One only has to look at the level of opposition to EWR, HS2, etc when they have consulted and gone through the consents process for building a new railway across unexciting farmland to realise that building a new railway through the middle of a national park, on an already well established leisure facility, will be an order of magnitude more difficult. I look forward to the pressure group putting forward its proposals for how it will build such a railway.

2) This was in the first round of bids for Restoring Your Railway funding for initial business case development. It was rejected. It was resubmitted in the third round. It was rejected again. It didn’t make it into the ’best’ 38 proposals for reopening in England and Wales, when being assessed on a common criteria.

 

[yorksrob]

No one had said that, I am saying there is no official desire or backing to take another look at it, just sound bites. There are no assumptions to even start with another investigation.

And that, is the problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2023 ==

They've looked into the economics in detail and worked out that no matter what you do, it'll be worse for the overall economy than the current status quo. Therefore there's no point spending £100K+ on detailed engineering designs, which you would need to do to get TRTs with which you could build a concept timetable, the modelling for which would itself cost £80K+

Any project needs to identify the following things, in order: Economic basis > Funding > Detailed Technical Design > Operational design (Timetables, Stock, drivers etc). Peak rail hasn't even got as far as funding.

Knowing the treasury, the scheme has probably "failed" the economic case based on reducing the road/fuel tax intake.

We've heard it all before.

 

[zwk500]

And that, is the problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2023 ==



Knowing the treasury, the scheme has probably "failed" the economic case based on reducing the road/fuel tax intake.

We've heard it all before.

Read the 2004 report I linked to upthread.

Most re-opening schemes get a feasibility study every 10 years or so. The fact there's no readily available one for the last 20 should tell you something.

 

[yorksrob]

Read the 2004 report I linked to upthread.

Most re-opening schemes get a feasibility study every 10 years or so. The fact there's no readily available one for the last 20 should tell you something.

I'm pretty sure I did years ago, but I'll take another look this weekend.

 

[A0]

And that, is the problem.

Why is it a "problem" ? Especially as Bald Rick points out (post 115), this one has had two failed submissions into the Restoring Your Railways fund - which is the first step.

So, in summary, Network Rail or the TOCs don't see a need for it, otherwise they'd be funding such work. Other bodies can submit via RYR, which has been done and it's been rejected, presumably because it isn't meeting some basic criteria.

All of this means you are, once again, being the St Jude of rail reopenings.

 

[The Planner]

And that, is the problem.

It clearly isn't the problem if people aren't pursuing it, as @Bald Rick has said, its failed twice at trying to just secure funding to look at a business case. If this was such a massive issue to re-open it, what are the local councils doing to pursue it, are the local quarries prepared to chip in as noted earlier, and so on. I keep saying, if a third party wants to fund this to a point of a strategic outline business case they can do.