Restoration of the Peak Line

[yorksrob]

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

And if Bakewell (popn 4,000) with limited demand for travel to Derby or Buxton is your best justification for this line, then you really don't have a justification.

Manchester - Derby can be done just as quickly via Stoke with 1 change. Leicester - Manchester doesn't really have any demand as the Project Rio services demonstrated.

So then you're left with freight. Hope Valley upgrades can address some of it. 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.

How? as I noted earlier, its all very well taking it in isolation, but do all the extra trains fit at either end, where are they going etc.. how does this make those parts of the railway more efficient?

I would divert the Manchester - Nottingham service via Derby which would bring an extra large town (Derby) into the catchment and extend the Buxton stopper to join with the Matlock stopper to provide the local service through the peak.

This automatically frees up two paths in and out of Sheffield to improve services/provide extra capacity along the Hope Valley and Chesterfield lines - You only have to find one extra at the Derby and Manchester end.

Added to this, you have an extra route to get freight out of the way at Peak forest.

I'd remind people that some years ago we didn't run passenger trains along copy pit, most going between West Yorks and South Lancashire had to go via Manchester.

Now we do send trains over Copy Pit. The pinch points are still there in Manchester, Preston and West Yorkshire. If anything they're busier than ever. Would anyone seriously suggest that not having the direct trains between West Yorkshire and Preston would be an operational improvement ?

Can you put some numbers on the services you anticipate on the Hope Valley and the High Peak routes after reinstatement? It's all very well declaring that it will reduce the inefficiencies, but skilled people have looked at this multiple times and said it wouldn't, so obviously it's not readily apparent and they've missed something that you've seen.

No, skilled people i.e. train planners look at what they can get out of the existing network. They haven't got time to work out the benefits of the non-existant route.

 

[zwk500]

No, skilled people i.e. train planners look at what they can get out of the existing network. They haven't got time to work out the benefits of the non-existant route.

So the people who wrote the feasibility reports that resulted in Airdrie-Bathgate, Borders, Crossrail, Ebbw Vale, Okehampton, Thameslink, Chiltern project Evergreen, EWR, Snow Hill Tunnel (Birmingham), HS2 aren't skilled? They're just making it up and haven't got a clue what they're doing?

 

[The Planner]

I would divert the Manchester - Nottingham service via Derby which would bring an extra large town (Derby) into the catchment and extend the Buxton stopper to join with the Matlock stopper to provide the local service through the peak.

This automatically frees up two paths in and out of Sheffield to improve services/provide extra capacity along the Hope Valley and Chesterfield lines - You only have to find one extra at the Derby and Manchester end.

Added to this, you have an extra route to get freight out of the way at Peak forest.

I'd remind people that some years ago we didn't run passenger trains along copy pit, most going between West Yorks and South Lancashire had to go via Manchester.

Now we do send trains over Copy Pit. The pinch points are still there in Manchester, Preston and West Yorkshire. If anything they're busier than ever. Would anyone seriously suggest that not having the direct trains between West Yorkshire and Preston would be an operational improvement ?


No, skilled people i.e. train planners look at what they can get out of the existing network. They haven't got time to work out the benefits of the non-existant route.

Divert the existing Manchester Nottingham section of the Liverpool Norwich via Derby now. Job done. How are you connecting the Matlock to the Buxton service, or is this requiring more railway or not running via Chinley?

There are specific teams of train planners that look at exactly this if remitted to.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Thanks to @Killingworth for the Peak Forest video link. One of the things that that demonstrates is the way that resourcing of the construction flows is inextricably linked with locomotive and wagon movements to/from Barrow Hill, Doncaster, Toton, Guide Bridge, Crewe and so on. None of these would be particularly aided by re-opening the Peak line. (I'll accept that Chaddesden could be more direct.)

I would divert the Manchester - Nottingham service via Derby which would bring an extra large town (Derby) into the catchment and extend the Buxton stopper to join with the Matlock stopper to provide the local service through the peak.

This automatically frees up two paths in and out of Sheffield to improve services/provide extra capacity along the Hope Valley and Chesterfield lines - You only have to find one extra at the Derby and Manchester end.

So this is just robbing Sheffield by taking away half of its regional services to/from Nottingham and Manchester? Obviously, if they were somehow 'replaced' you haven't freed up any capacity at all.

And I'd love to know what the Buxton layout would look like for what would be a very slow local service overall.

Any plans for Chapel-en-le-Frith and/or more calls/connections at Chinley?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'd remind people that some years ago we didn't run passenger trains along copy pit, most going between West Yorks and South Lancashire had to go via Manchester.

Now we do send trains over Copy Pit. The pinch points are still there in Manchester, Preston and West Yorkshire. If anything they're busier than ever. Would anyone seriously suggest that not having the direct trains between West Yorkshire and Preston would be an operational improvement ?

When did the West Yorkshire services via Hebden Bridge and Blackburn to the WCML area start running via the Copy Pit line?

 

[JKF]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the current owners of Haddon Hall - which the railway runs underneath - aren't supportive either.

I believe they’re also hostile to the bike path, which is why that’s never got further than just south of Bakewell. Linking that to Matlock would be very beneficial for leisure access to the peaks. Hopefully one day there will be a change of ownership or attitude.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd totally agree, and when Peak Rail was formed it wasn't unreasonable to consider getting it restored but in 50 years the world has moved on. Not the least of that movement is the massive loads of limestone and cement being removed in ever longer trains.

Jumbo trains are now a routine feature, effectively two trains linked together to use only one path for the greater part of their routes, see explanation from Railfreight.com; https://www.railfreight.com/railfre...htliner-jumbo-trains-anniversary/?gdpr=accept

Currently these go westbound to the WCML requiring a seemingly ridiculous journey north to Guide Bridge before heading south. That's a subject for another thread, but easing that could be a lot easier to achieve than the MEMRAP proposals (see an OS map for confirmation). Looking at RTT for the last week most freight paths to the west (then either south or north) went unused so extra capacity seems to be available.

Going east (then either north or south) it's a similar story, more unused paths than actually taken up so capacity is available. For the quarry operators that's essential to allow flexibility to meet contracts. There are days when it can be difficult to do that but the issues are as likely to be near the destination as in the Peak District - and supply of and space for empty wagons is another issue. MEMRAP: would only marginally help with these

Regarding road transport for these loads, yes, they do occur, quite a lot of them. I see cement coming out of the Hope Valley in smaller loads to more specific smaller sites than the long train loads to major distribution depots for onward local deliveries. The same goes for smaller quarries that aren't rail linked at all. However those unfamiliar with the scale of some of these Peak District operations might be interested to see this train spotters video taken at Peak Forest over a 2 hour spell last month. Imagine those trains rumbling through places like Bakewell, Millers Dale, Bakewell, Darley Dale, Matlock and Cromford. More tourists welcome, but not these. The opposition to any reopening hasn't got started. See;

Yes, this seems like a sensible assessment of the situation. Lots of demand for many sectors of rail use.

 

[tbtc]

In spite of what the naysayers say (and they seem to be multiplying on here for some reason) this is the most sensible of the reopening proposals

Guy who seems to back every flaky reopening proposal backs yet another one, shocker!

However rather than concentrating on just one market, it needs to embrace all the various traffic flows that will benefit - local residents, tourists and walkers, better inter-regional services between the North West and Midlands and relieving the Hope valley of its freight pressures

You destroy your own argument in your first sentence:



Two track railways often have to juggle competing traffic flows - freight, fast and stopping passenger trains etc. Just look at the Hope Valley which is the text book case of this.

However two track railways manage this juggling act so much better when there are alternative routes for the different trains to take, which is what the MML through Bakewell would do

So this new/reinstated line is going to benefit walkers by closing the Monsall Trail for a long time whilst the railway is built, then building a huge fence along the middle so that a single track railway can take over half of the current track bed?

No, wait, this is also going to accommodate a competitive Liverpool - Norwich service? Plus lots of freight? And local trains for local people? Which presumably means double track, so the closure of the popular Trail?

In fact, FOUR track, in at least some places, if you’re not wanting the Liverpool - Norwich services to be trundling along behind heavy Quarry trains?

And your argument for combining “fast” long distance trains with stoppers and regular freight is that this somehow segregates services?

If it were open, it would enable people to visit places throughout the Peak District

Places “throughout” the Peak District?

Other than Bakewell, what “new” stations would there be though?

I would divert the Manchester - Nottingham service via Derby which would bring an extra large town (Derby) into the catchment and extend the Buxton stopper to join with the Matlock stopper to provide the local service through the peak.

This automatically frees up two paths in and out of Sheffield to improve services/provide extra capacity along the Hope Valley and Chesterfield lines - You only have to find one extra at the Derby and Manchester end

So how does this benefit Sheffield, other than removing the long established services?

Sheffield to Nottingham goes down to just the two coach DMU from Leeds (constrained by the lack of platform capacity at Leeds)?

Sheffield to Manchester just one “fast” train per hour and one all-stops service?

And Chesterfield losing all of its Manchester trains?

Extend the Buxton service HOW exactly? Close the town centre station and dump everyone at a station on the edge instead?

Why not just stick a couple more carriages on the existing EMR services from Liverpool to Norwich? Would be about a billion pounds cheaper…

 

[yorksrob]

So the people who wrote the feasibility reports that resulted in Airdrie-Bathgate, Borders, Crossrail, Ebbw Vale, Okehampton, Thameslink, Chiltern project Evergreen, EWR, Snow Hill Tunnel (Birmingham), HS2 aren't skilled? They're just making it up and haven't got a clue what they're doing?

Well, they do have a clue - and as with the Peak valley reports (2008 I think) they've concluded that the route would be useful.

However, most of those lines had existing freight routes and in the case of Waverley, they had the Scottish Government. That's what counts.

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

Divert the existing Manchester Nottingham section of the Liverpool Norwich via Derby now. Job done. How are you connecting the Matlock to the Buxton service, or is this requiring more railway or not running via Chinley?

There are specific teams of train planners that look at exactly this if remitted to.

You wouldn't save much track space going that way.

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

Thanks to @Killingworth for the Peak Forest video link. One of the things that that demonstrates is the way that resourcing of the construction flows is inextricably linked with locomotive and wagon movements to/from Barrow Hill, Doncaster, Toton, Guide Bridge, Crewe and so on. None of these would be particularly aided by re-opening the Peak line. (I'll accept that Chaddesden could be more direct.)


So this is just robbing Sheffield by taking away half of its regional services to/from Nottingham and Manchester? Obviously, if they were somehow 'replaced' you haven't freed up any capacity at all.

And I'd love to know what the Buxton layout would look like for what would be a very slow local service overall.

Any plans for Chapel-en-le-Frith and/or more calls/connections at Chinley?

How would this be robbing Sheffield ? Sheffield could run an additional service to Nottingham/Manchester without having to accommodate loads of through passengers.

I'd add a call at Chapel en le Frith central to enable it's regional connection. As for the service via Buxton, yes it would be long winded, but it would be mainly for the local connections.

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

When did the West Yorkshire services via Hebden Bridge and Blackburn to the WCML area start running via the Copy Pit line?

Some time in the 1980's I believe.

 

[The Planner]

You wouldn't save much track space going that way.

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



How would this be robbing Sheffield ? Sheffield could run an additional service to Nottingham/Manchester without having to accommodate loads of through passengers.

You would save billions of pounds on the basis that train is perceived as an enabler for the reopening.

So you are now running an extra service to Manchester at the eastern end of the route on existing tracks from Sheffield. Same goes for Nottingham, you have now added another service in.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I remember many years ago reading about a tunnel somewhere in the Dove Holes area that seemed to have certain problems, but I am now unsure of the exact line it was on. Can anyone assist in refreshing my memory about it?

 

[yorksrob]

Guy who seems to back every flaky reopening proposal backs yet another one, shocker!





So this new/reinstated line is going to benefit walkers by closing the Monsall Trail for a long time whilst the railway is built, then building a huge fence along the middle so that a single track railway can take over half of the current track bed?

No, wait, this is also going to accommodate a competitive Liverpool - Norwich service? Plus lots of freight? And local trains for local people? Which presumably means double track, so the closure of the popular Trail?

In fact, FOUR track, in at least some places, if you’re not wanting the Liverpool - Norwich services to be trundling along behind heavy Quarry trains?

And your argument for combining “fast” long distance trains with stoppers and regular freight is that this somehow segregates services?



Places “throughout” the Peak District?

Other than Bakewell, what “new” stations would there be though?



So how does this benefit Sheffield, other than removing the long established services?

Sheffield to Nottingham goes down to just the two coach DMU from Leeds (constrained by the lack of platform capacity at Leeds)?

Sheffield to Manchester just one “fast” train per hour and one all-stops service?

And Chesterfield losing all of its Manchester trains?

Extend the Buxton service HOW exactly? Close the town centre station and dump everyone at a station on the edge instead?

Why not just stick a couple more carriages on the existing EMR services from Liverpool to Norwich? Would be about a billion pounds cheaper…

Ooh, I was looking forward to your essay.

There are plenty of re-opening proposals I don't take a view on. You clearly oppose all regardless (name us one you don't).

- Sheffield will have vacated paths towards both Manc and Sheffield that it can use to its own devices. It can have extra express services without the through Manc-Midlands passengers. It could introduce some stops to improve local connectivity. Also they could divert some of those stone train paths and put in a stopper. The world's Sheffield's oyster.

Why would one need wo re-route trains in Buxton ? The Peak forest line already runs into the area, so it would just be the case of a curve and a reversal.

EMR services could be extended, though no one seems to do it. It wouldn't help the local traffic though.

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

You would save billions of pounds on the basis that train is perceived as an enabler for the reopening.

So you are now running an extra service to Manchester at the eastern end of the route on existing tracks from Sheffield. Same goes for Nottingham, you have now added another service in.

Hazel grove is set up for terminators. You could extend one of these to form an extra stopper.

Alternatively Stockport has it's platform zero. You could use the capacity to split/divide trains.

If the train planners had the route, I'm sure they would make good use of it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why would one need wo re-route trains in Buxton ? The Peak forest line already runs into the area, so it would just be the case of a curve and a reversal.

EMR services could be extended, though no one seems to do it. It wouldn't help the local traffic though.

Have you ever approached EMR to ask what their views are on that matter?

 

[zwk500]

Well, they do have a clue - and as with the Peak valley reports (2008 I think) they've concluded that the route would be useful.

So they only know what they're doing if they agree with you are pro-rail, got it.

However, most of those lines had existing freight routes and in the case of Waverley, they had the Scottish Government. That's what counts.

Airdrie-Bathgate, Borders, Snow Hill Tunnel (x2), EWR all required new track on old alignments that had been fully dismantled.
Crossrail, HS2, Bicester Chord Require(d) Completely new track and Alignments.
Only Ebbw Vale and Okehampton were refitting of freight lines. Add A2B and Borders, you get 4 that had existing line or Scotgov, and 6 that didn't.

 

[yorksrob]

Have you ever approached EMR to ask what their views are on that matter?

I've not, but then I've always been preoccupied by withdrawal of their HST fleet.

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

So they only know what they're doing if they agree with you are pro-rail, got it.

Airdrie-Bathgate, Borders, Snow Hill Tunnel (x2), EWR all required new track on old alignments that had been fully dismantled.
Crossrail, HS2, Bicester Chord Require(d) Completely new track and Alignments.
Only Ebbw Vale and Okehampton were refitting of freight lines. Add A2B and Borders, you get 4 that had existing line or Scotgov, and 6 that didn't.

Well, I don't know how pro-rail the 2008 study were, but they came ip with a study.

Where are all these other studies that have confirmed that the new services couldn't be accommodated ?

Apart from Snow Hill tunnel, none of the English reopenings have been on lifted tracks. You can't deny that for most of the last twenty years there has been a political bias against reopenings in England.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Apart from Snow Hill tunnel, none of the English reopenings have been on lifted tracks. You can't deny that for most of the last twenty years there has been a political bias against reopenings in England.

Or could it be that in fact Beeching largely got it right?

 

[zwk500]

Where are all these other studies that have confirmed that the new services couldn't be accommodated ?

Here's a 2004 one: https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/site-...ail-project-feasibility-study-full-report.pdf
Key quote from the Executive Summary:

The best option in economic terms is a ‘passenger only’ railway with an hourly service. Specific provision for regular freight traffic (the only freight identified is that originating in the north of the study corridor) would require specific additional funding. However, the ‘passenger only’ railway would still be capable of accommodating some freight services, although not on a regular hourly basis. All options considered show a worse economic assessment than the ‘Reference Case’ (maintaining the status quo in terms of transport provision within the study area).

Best option is bare-minimum, but even that is a worse economic outlook than the status quo.
The recommendations are interesting also:

2 Consider how blight, consequential upon retaining the safeguarding of the route, may be removed or reduced for those most affected. Establishing a ‘not before’ date may be one way of achieving this.

Essentially - keeping this proposal open is a drag on the economy. Better to kill it and focus on things that might actually happen

3 In any event, limit further development until such time as a funding mechanism for delivery of the whole project can be identified. Many aspects of further potential assessment – engineering and environmental – have only a short period of ‘validity’ and delays in project implementation would result in the need to repeat this work to capture any changes in circumstances in the intervening period.

Essentially - stop wasting small amounts of money on keeping the idea alive, wait until you've got serious backers to actually hit it

Apart from Snow Hill tunnel, none of the English reopenings have been on lifted tracks. You can't deny that for most of the last twenty years there has been a political bias against reopenings in England.

I don't deny there's a political bias. But we weren't discussing politics, we were discussing the competence of those doing feasibility studies professionally and your apparent assessment that skilled pepole only looked at the existing network, which then changed to only the positive studies were done by skilled people.
And specifying 'lifted tracks' only is disingenuous - Travel Patterns have changed since the 60s. let alone the 1900s. Why should Canal Tunnels and Bicester Chord be excluded from English rail investment just because they weren't built by a Brunel or Stevenson?

 

[yorksrob]

Or could it be that in fact Beeching largely got it right?

Well he did in this case - he didn't list the MML Bakewell route

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

Here's a 2004 one: https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/site-...ail-project-feasibility-study-full-report.pdf
Key quote from the Executive Summary:

Best option is bare-minimum, but even that is a worse economic outlook than the status quo.
The recommendations are interesting also:

Essentially - keeping this proposal open is a drag on the economy. Better to kill it and focus on things that might actually happen

Essentially - stop wasting small amounts of money on keeping the idea alive, wait until you've got serious backers to actually hit it


I don't deny there's a political bias. But we weren't discussing politics, we were discussing the competence of those doing feasibility studies professionally and your apparent assessment that skilled pepole only looked at the existing network, which then changed to only the positive studies were done by skilled people.
And specifying 'lifted tracks' only is disingenuous - Travel Patterns have changed since the 60s. let alone the 1900s. Why should Canal Tunnels and Bicester Chord be excluded from English rail investment just because they weren't built by a Brunel or Stevenson?

So essentially, the report quoted supports a passenger railway.

The problem isn't that it's a bad idea, just that no one wants to cough up for it.

Well plus ca change !

I suspect that the report was constrained from considering the wider network benefits as these couldn't be costed for, but I'm open to be disproved.

 

[JKF]

I've not, but then I've always been preoccupied by withdrawal of their HST fleet.

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



Well, I don't know how pro-rail the 2008 study were, but they came ip with a study.

Where are all these other studies that have confirmed that the new services couldn't be accommodated ?

Apart from Snow Hill tunnel, none of the English reopenings have been on lifted tracks. You can't deny that for most of the last twenty years there has been a political bias against reopenings in England.

Parts of Thameslink and the Overground were on lifted track.

 

[The Planner]

Hazel grove is set up for terminators. You could extend one of these to form an extra stopper.

Alternatively Stockport has it's platform zero. You could use the capacity to split/divide trains.

If the train planners had the route, I'm sure they would make good use of it.

I doubt I could find a robust amount of capacity to be honest at either end.

 

[tbtc]

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)

Well, they do have a clue - and as with the Peak valley reports (2008 I think) they've concluded that the route would be useful

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”

- Sheffield will have vacated paths towards both Manc and Sheffield that it can use to its own devices. It can have extra express services without the through Manc-Midlands passengers. It could introduce some stops to improve local connectivity. Also they could divert some of those stone train paths and put in a stopper. The world's Sheffield's oyster

How would this be robbing Sheffield ? Sheffield could run an additional service to Nottingham/Manchester without having to accommodate loads of through passengers

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?

Ooh, I was looking forward to your essay.

There are plenty of re-opening proposals I don't take a view on. You clearly oppose all regardless (name us one you don't)

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

As for the service via Buxton, yes it would be long winded, but it would be mainly for the local connections

Why would one need wo re-route trains in Buxton ? The Peak forest line already runs into the area, so it would just be the case of a curve and a reversal

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

EMR services could be extended, though no one seems to do it

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 !

specifying 'lifted tracks' only is disingenuous - Travel Patterns have changed since the 60s. let alone the 1900s. Why should Canal Tunnels and Bicester Chord be excluded from English rail investment just because they weren't built by a Brunel or Stevenson?

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

 

[zwk500]

If the train planners had the route, I'm sure they would make good use of it.

And yet, when (at least) two train planners have consistently told you they couldn't, you've rubbished or ignored them and ploughed ahead.

 

[HSTEd]

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!

 

[yorksrob]

Parts of Thameslink and the Overground were on lifted track.

That's true, but these were all in London, so not particularly comparable.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

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...

It's the Monsal Trail. Monsall (in North Manchester) isn't all that particularly scenic.

 

[yorksrob]

I doubt I could find a robust amount of capacity to be honest at either end.

I doubt that that would be the case. But even if it were, there would still be a benefit from getting some of the freight paths shifted away from the existing routes.

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

And yet, when (at least) two train planners have consistently told you they couldn't, you've rubbished or ignored them and ploughed ahead.

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

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

I'd dearly love to plough ahead, but don't have the authority.

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

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

I never suggested four track would be required.

Since you've not bothered to read my post, I'll ignore the rest of yours.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The one good thing about this thread is it answers the question posed on the Restoring Your Railway thread about what will happen to some of these fantasy proposals when they fail to be shortlisted. The (predictable) answer is those proposing them will just pretend nothing has happened and carry on as before, or in this example make even more bizarre proposals.

 

[yorksrob]

The one good thing about this thread is it answers the question posed on the Restoring Your Railway thread about what will happen to some of these fantasy proposals when they fail to be shortlisted. The (predictable) answer is those proposing them will just pretend nothing has happened and carry on as before, or in this example make even more bizarre proposals.

This is not a fantasy proposal, whatever the autobus brigade might like to think.

 

[6Gman]

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

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.

 

[Bertie the bus]

This is not a fantasy proposal, whatever the autobus brigade might like to think.

No, you're right. It is a well thought out, completely viable and commercially realistic proposal.