It doesn’t matter. In the eyes of the law, it is exactly the same process to go through, to ensure that those who live near the route or have an interest in it can have their voices heard.
Because the proposers have not made a good enough case to explain why anyone should invest any public money even investigating an initial business case. It’s really not at all hard to do that - it’s roughly a week‘s work for two or three people that know what they’re talking about - assuming the proposal is likely to have sufficiently compelling benefits to generate a positive case. If someone gave me £10k I’d do it.
Well, there isn’t a budget so that’s hard to say! No doubt some cost estimates have been suggested by the promoters (I haven’t looked), but I’d be surprised if they were realistic. Here’s mine. Because of the nature of the terrain, the extra measures that will be needed for environmental protection in the national park, and what will no doubt be a very long consents process through a Development Consent Order* process, this will be upwards of £50m per km for the new build, and maybe half that for the sections that take over Peak Rail and the freight line at the Buxton end. Add in upgrades needed on the existing Matlock and Buxton branches to accommodate the extra traffic, and a figure of £1.5bn would be a reasonable estimate, albeit one that doesn’t allow for any upgrades elsewhere on the network that might be needed to accommodate new services on this line.
*this proposal is far too big for an Order under the Transport and Works Act, which I hope the proposers know.
Those living closest to the entire route would have a lot to say at Network Rail public consultations on specific proposals and then the inevitable public inquiry. There would be a lot of very vocal and well reasoned opposition.
To get through tho detailed planning necessary for a project of this size and then through those public stages would cost many millions. MEMRAP hasn't got that sort of money. As far as I can see Derbyshire County Council is somewhat ambivalent about the project, caught between the economic benefits of employment provided by the quarries and tourism and the fear that long lumbering freight trains would destroy the peace of the Peak District countryside that tourists come to see. Those living close to a mainline will know heavy freight trains cause vibrations when they pass by.
Some members may recall the Northern Hub proposals to build Platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly. That would have produced far greater benefits to the north. In 2014 it got to a public inquiry that was submitted to the Secretary of State for his consideration under the terms of the Transport and Works Act. It has gathered so much dust that current staff in the Department probably don't know where it is, but it has not been approved, or officially rejected, nearly 9 years later. The much smaller Hope Valley scheme started life in the late 1990s, was officially noted in Railtrack's Strategic Rail Plan in 2002 to be completed 2003-4, got to public consultations in 2013 and 2015 and to public inquiry in 2016. That wasn't approved with a TWAO until 2018 and it should be completed 2023-4 (and it was nearly stopped by the CLH strategic oil pipeline's proximity to the site).
Far too much energy and time is being spent on this proposal when the huge sums of money that would be needed can be better spent on quicker and simpler projects that will bring more immediate benefits. Reference has been made to the Hope Valley capacity scheme's original intention to add 2 further hourly fast paths between Manchester and Sheffield, reduced to one in 2015. That appears to be undeliverable without doubling the chord at Hazel Grove and adding a third track between Dore and Sheffield, plus resolving platform constraints at and into Manchester and Sheffield. The third track down the Sheaf Valley is supposedly part of the MML electrification and Sheffield remodelling plans to be completed by - 2030? Maybe? It would be good if we could see all this completed first.
Capacity constraints exist around the country. Let's concentrate on resolving specific junctions, platforms, crossovers and signalling - like updating from Earles in the Hope Valley into Manchester to match the system now going in from there into Sheffield under York. It's on a to do list - by 2030?
Trouble is restoring long abandoned lines attracts far more emotive support than for, say, restoring a 3rd (and 4th) track from Dore into Sheffield.
