Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
For a route that carries primarily leisure passengers, I think it's probably realistic. It's a very unusual route, there are few if any others like it in that regard, where the primary demand for the local service is to/from intermediate rural stations.
Let me throw a curveball into this debate. There's been lots of discussion about opening up Matlock-Buxton for freight, but how about Uttoxeter-Dove Holes? I'm not very familiar with the area, but I think the trackbed is pretty much intact most of the way.
I think the annual passenger numbers are not enough information in this case - you will probably find significantly higher usage of the local stations on a weekend and in school holidays, and the proposal to remove weekend and school holiday Manchester->Peak direct services would be lunacy, and indeed go against the whole basis on which the line was reprieved from Beeching. Even skip-stopping may not suit as some will use it for linear walks.
This is not a typical rural branch line - it's one that is very heavily tourism-oriented in its usage patterns - even more so than something like the Conwy Valley or Windermere branches, where only a couple of specific stations are interesting to tourists.
I would suggest that if the stopper gets in the way then building a platform loop[1] at a suitable intermediate station would be the way to do it, that way other trains can be allowed to pass it, and because of its high leisure usage the delay caused by it sitting in a platform loop for a period of time won't be too dissuasive. Bamford definitely has room at least eastbound (I just looked at a map), I don't know about the other stations.
I'd probably further suggest that there is no sense in looking to increase the passenger frequencies (beyond the stopper being hourly all day), instead lengthen the trains.
[1] Definitely a platform loop. The situation we have at present where some Windermere directs sit in a loop just before the Oxenholme platform for 10 minutes - useless time - is a triumph of doing it on the cheap.
Do you have any sort of experience of using this line? It is not a typical rural branch line and there is considerably greater use of the stoppers on weekends and school holidays than during the week - sometimes even full and standing on a nice day. Indeed, this is why it, and not Woodhead, was reprieved of Beeching closure - Woodhead had, beyond Hadfield, basically no intermediate demand at all
Well, yes, I'm aware of the demand on my local line, thanks, but I think you're trying to reverse engineer something onto Beeching... my understanding was that he had the Hope Valley line down to close (but retain the Bakewell and Woodhead lines)... but the intermediate passengers in the Hope Valley will have been pretty insignificant when making those kind of decisions in the 1960s - the Woodhead line had Penistone demand too.
There's also the point that Woodhead had not access to Sheffield Midland station, so, by closing it, you could shut Victoria too. And Woodhead's use was really to do with the coal industry, so once that was dwindling away, BR closed it (but not Beeching).
We are in a pandemic now, but we are also in a climate emergency, so spending money on better sustainable transportation is very important, for both freight and passengers!
Well, if you want to tackle the issue of sustainable transport then presumably you are against running diesel trains just so that people can go for a walk up a hill?
Exactly; and he also understood that the losses on most branch lines were so high that British Railways' finances would be better by losing both the branch line deficits and whatever contribution* they made to InterCity routes.
* In almost all cases the through fares paid at branch line stations were not enough to finance the branch line let alone also contribute to the main lines.
Agreed - there's this oft-repeated suggestion that somehow the handful of passengers on a branch line train were responsible for huge numbers of people on main line trains - I don't think you'd have been able to tell whether stations like Bakewell had closed or not based on the number of people using the train from Derby to London.
Let me throw a curveball into this debate. There's been lots of discussion about opening up Matlock-Buxton for freight, but how about Uttoxeter-Dove Holes? I'm not very familiar with the area, but I think the trackbed is pretty much intact most of the way.
Would be a long way around to the MML though, and no help at all to get towards the Midlands. It would also be very difficult to reopen I suspect, especially Ashbourne, Rocester to Uttoxeter.
Let me throw a curveball into this debate. There's been lots of discussion about opening up Matlock-Buxton for freight, but how about Uttoxeter-Dove Holes? I'm not very familiar with the area, but I think the trackbed is pretty much intact most of the way.
Apart from running slap through the centre of JCB's massive World Headquarters factory at Rocester there are a few more major obstacles now built across that route to make it a totally unrealistic option.
Apart from running slap through the centre of JCB's massive World Headquarters factory at Rocester there are a few more major obstacles now built across that route to make it a totally unrealistic option.
Well, yes, I'm aware of the demand on my local line, thanks, but I think you're trying to reverse engineer something onto Beeching... my understanding was that he had the Hope Valley line down to close (but retain the Bakewell and Woodhead lines)... but the intermediate passengers in the Hope Valley will have been pretty insignificant when making those kind of decisions in the 1960s - the Woodhead line had Penistone demand too.
For a route that carries primarily leisure passengers, I think it's probably realistic. It's a very unusual route, there are few if any others like it in that regard, where the primary demand for the local service is to/from intermediate rural stations.
Before the pandemic the current 2, 3 or 4 car 195s (and 2 or 4 car 150s) would have coped with peak loads for all but a very limited number of trains. That would mainly be a few Manchester commuting journeys or when a TPE or EMR fast had been cancelled or very late, or there was a ticket pricing anomaly - like on Saturday mornings it could be 3 times the price from Sheffield to Manchester on the fast trains. Backpackers for the Pennine Way from Edale and Manchester Airport users all cramming onto a single unit Pacer was ridiculous. No need for new lines or train paths to cater for them, just reallocation of rolling stock or tweeking ticket pricing.
At present a large number of freight paths aren't being used. If they were it's inevitable there'd be more delays in the Hope Valley. For stone to use routes on the west side to go north or south they hit the Manchester web of old lines (many now lifted and built over) weaving in and out, and put pressure on already congested junctions at places like Guide Bridge. By end 2023 the eastward choke points in the Hope Valley should largely be resolved.
On current low passenger volumes it's not impossible that by 2023 the business case for a 4th hourly service, fast or slow, may no longer sit comfortably with the need for more freight capacity. The 4th service may not be needed every hour. A lot can happen in 3 years, but reopening Buxton - Matlock at huge cost in maybe 10 years time to build HS2 doesn't add up.
Unless those platform loops start well in advance of the station (or extend a fair distance beyond) you'll have to accept extended dwells at those stations while the fast clears the next block. See also the Eastbound loop at Dewsbury where the Leeds stopper has a long dwell to allow the fast to pass. Not a deal-breaker but will extend journey times for many users of the stopper.
At the present state of play for passenger traffic, the current service could be reduced for additional freight paths if they are required. However, hopefully the traffic, in some guise, will return at some point, but increased capacity can be coped with by longer trains, rather than additional frequency, for quite some time yet.
I guess that the railway will squeeze additional paths for freight trains out of the Hope Valley line, by infrastructure (such as passing loops) and technical enhancements (signalling etc) or diversion via longer routes. When (if) these run out, it may be a trade off between freight paths and stopping trains, like on the Lotschberg Pass before the tunnel was built. Defending rural rail to the grave is a little over the top when 99.5% of rural settlements in this country have no rail, without any noticeable difference to 'young people'. That is not to say that the decision should be taken lightly.
If traffic is still rising, eventually a new Pennine 'base tunnel' should be built, which will solve the capacity (and journey time) issues for many years hence. This tunnel may be built for other reasons than increasing capacity of existing lines (such as speed), and therefore may be ahead of the ultimate capacity crunch.
Unless those platform loops start well in advance of the station (or extend a fair distance beyond) you'll have to accept extended dwells at those stations while the fast clears the next block. See also the Eastbound loop at Dewsbury where the Leeds stopper has a long dwell to allow the fast to pass. Not a deal-breaker but will extend journey times for many users of the stopper.
Much as I'd like to believe rail will take masses of cars out of the Peak the evidence of my own eyes on trains, roads and and walking says it currently plays a barely perceptible role in reducing car traffic in the Peak District. Access points up the Derwent valley from Ambergate to Matlock aren't in the Peak proper. Buxton, Glossop and Dore are getting close. Grindleford, Hathersage, Bamford, Hope, Edale and Chinley are where most will start walking.
At weekends (and this summer almost any day) every conceivable parking space has been taken, plus a lot that are inconceivable. Trains could have been full if the message hadn't, rightly, been to avoid crowded trains unless absolutely essential. If every train had been full it would have made an insignificant difference to the bedlam on and off the roads. There's massive potential to take more cars off the roads, but the days of long special walkers excursion trains have long gone. It would take many of them combined with directions to ban non-residents cars to get them used. Folks want to stop anywhere and everywhere to start a walk or picnic, not limited to a station with similar issues getting to a starting station. It was eye opening seeing parking enforcement at Edale and Padley Gorge (Grindleford) this year, with farmers unable to get into fields for parked cars.
Much as I'd like to believe rail will take masses of cars out of the Peak the evidence of my own eyes on trains, roads and and walking says it currently plays a barely perceptible role in reducing car traffic in the Peak District. Access points up the Derwent valley from Ambergate to Matlock aren't in the Peak proper. Buxton, Glossop and Dore are getting close. Grindleford, Hathersage, Bamford, Hope, Edale and Chinley are where most will start walking.
At weekends (and this summer almost any day) every conceivable parking space has been taken, plus a lot that are inconceivable. Trains could have been full if the message hadn't, rightly, been to avoid crowded trains unless absolutely essential. If every train had been full it would have made an insignificant difference to the bedlam on and off the roads. There's massive potential to take more cars off the roads, but the days of long special walkers excursion trains have long gone. It would take many of them combined with directions to ban non-residents cars to get them used. Folks want to stop anywhere and everywhere to start a walk or picnic, not limited to a station with similar issues getting to a starting station. It was eye opening seeing parking enforcement at Edale and Padley Gorge (Grindleford) this year, with farmers unable to get into fields for parked cars.
Spot on. Walkers aiming for, say, Edale may all be aiming for the same place, but unless they live near a station that has a decent connection to Edale, they will drive. Of all the people who enjoy walking in the peaks (and I’m one of them), I’d suggest less than 5% will consider the train as realistic option, and less than half of them will use it.
Much as I'd like to believe rail will take masses of cars out of the Peak the evidence of my own eyes on trains, roads and and walking says it currently plays a barely perceptible role in reducing car traffic in the Peak District. Access points up the Derwent valley from Ambergate to Matlock aren't in the Peak proper. Buxton, Glossop and Dore are getting close. Grindleford, Hathersage, Bamford, Hope, Edale and Chinley are where most will start walking.
At weekends (and this summer almost any day) every conceivable parking space has been taken, plus a lot that are inconceivable. Trains could have been full if the message hadn't, rightly, been to avoid crowded trains unless absolutely essential. If every train had been full it would have made an insignificant difference to the bedlam on and off the roads. There's massive potential to take more cars off the roads, but the days of long special walkers excursion trains have long gone. It would take many of them combined with directions to ban non-residents cars to get them used. Folks want to stop anywhere and everywhere to start a walk or picnic, not limited to a station with similar issues getting to a starting station. It was eye opening seeing parking enforcement at Edale and Padley Gorge (Grindleford) this year, with farmers unable to get into fields for parked cars.
Hulleys new bus service X57 Sheffield to Manchester got stuck in traffic on Sunday and couldn’t access Fairholmes near Ladybower because of inconsiderately parked cars so missed out part of the route .
In recent years the network of bus services in the National Park have been significantly reduced and routes and frequencies are quite sparse. There is little or no marketing of the routes that remain.
Public Transport Access to the main walking hot spots, Monsal, High Peak and Tissington Trails is not good especially if you only want to walk one way on any of the trails.
Unfortunately I am as guilty as the next person, when my family go walking in the Peak District, we take the car as it’s much cheaper and more convenient. I won’t block a highway when parking though!
If travelling on my own and meeting up with pals, I will try and plan a walking route around public transport so I can reward myself with a couple of pints on my way home!
Hulleys new bus service X57 Sheffield to Manchester got stuck in traffic on Sunday and couldn’t access Fairholmes near Ladybower because of inconsiderately parked cars so missed out part of the route .
In recent years the network of bus services in the National Park have been significantly reduced and routes and frequencies are quite sparse. There is little or no marketing of the routes that remain.
Public Transport Access to the main walking hot spots, Monsal, High Peak and Tissington Trails is not good especially if you only want to walk one way on any of the trails.
Unfortunately I am as guilty as the next person, when my family go walking in the Peak District, we take the car as it’s much cheaper and more convenient. I won’t block a highway when parking though!
If travelling on my own and meeting up with pals, I will try and plan a walking route around public transport so I can reward myself with a couple of pints on my way home!
I took the train to Edale a couple of months ago, almost empty. Station car park rammed full, double parked, overflow parking full, crazy parking on approach roads, road up to the station by then coned off with Road Closed signage. Another midweek day I drove up ad saw for myself the crazy parking all the way up the valley.
If the railways are ever allowed to market their trains again 2020 has introduced masses of new visitors to the British countryside. Go get, 'em. But if you want to get masses out of cars they'll want to go to different places. That needs buses linking to rail at hubs, maybe at a place like Hope! And Matlock, Buxton and Glossop.
I visited St Ives, St Erth and Penzance last month using rail and bus to get between for walks. It worked well and I'd do it again.
However, I still don't see a need for an expensively restored alternative Victorian route to relieve pressure that may not be there in 3 years time.
Spot on. Walkers aiming for, say, Edale may all be aiming for the same place, but unless they live near a station that has a decent connection to Edale, they will drive. Of all the people who enjoy walking in the peaks (and I’m one of them), I’d suggest less than 5% will consider the train as realistic option, and less than half of them will use it.
Well, for a lot of people who aren't in possession of a car, the train is a very useful option and there are a lot of households in Sheffield and Manchester where that is the case. Acess to the countryside is important for all and Hope Valley is good for that.
Well, for a lot of people who aren't in possession of a car, the train is a very useful option and there are a lot of households in Sheffield and Manchester where that is the case. Access to the countryside is important for all and Hope Valley is good for that.
Yes, but, how many of the households in Sheffield and Manchester...
a) don’t have access to a car, and
b) want to access the countryside, and,
c) want to go the Peak District somewhere between Edale and Grindleford, and,
d) find the train the best option for cost / time / convenience from their point of origin (notig that the bus is free for pensioners)
You’re going to be in low single figures% of households, and they might make the trip once a month at best.
Yes, but, how many of the households in Sheffield and Manchester...
a) don’t have access to a car, and
b) want to access the countryside, and,
c) want to go the Peak District somewhere between Edale and Grindleford, and,
d) find the train the best option for cost / time / convenience from their point of origin (notig that the bus is free for pensioners)
You’re going to be in low single figures% of households, and they might make the trip once a month at best.
To be fair, in normal times there are a lot of apparently overseas students at universities and other educational institutions in Manchester and Sheffield who precisely fit your criteria. The Hope Valley local trains are often packed with them at appropriate times of year.
To be fair, in normal times there are a lot of apparently overseas students at universities and other educational institutions in Manchester and Sheffield who precisely fit your criteria. The Hope Valley local trains are often packed with them at appropriate times of year.
To be fair, in normal times there are a lot of apparently overseas students at universities and other educational institutions in Manchester and Sheffield who precisely fit your criteria. The Hope Valley local trains are often packed with them at appropriate times of year.
Absolutely right. On Saturday mornings back packers and mountain bikers crammed into single Pacers out of Sheffield. I've seen people get out at Dore because they couldn't stand the crush to go further. Intending passengers at Grindleford and Hathersage may have been unable to get aboard. It will be good to see how the 195s cope once we get back to a semblance of normality.
The station Friends group at Bamford made an excellent connection with a Chinese students group in Sheffield which has significantly helped the numbers arriving there. Some were seen travelling, masked, in June. Word may have gone round to Chinese people in the Manchester area that to get to Chatsworth it can be best to get a train to Dore to catch the 218 bus rather than going into Sheffield to get the same bus to come back out again. One day I saw a couple arrive with suitcases having flown into Manchester from China that morning and wanting to see as much as possible on their stay in Britain - all meticulously planned with Chatsworth first stop! (The plan hadn't set out how to find the bus stop from the station, or explain that the half hourly 218 alternates going Bakewell-Chatsworth then Chatsworth-Bakewell in a loop. Both give a nice scenic ride to Chatsworth.)
We don't do enough to integrate our limited bus and train services, but that's for another thread.
This aspect of Hope Valley rail capacity can easily be addressed by deploying 4 carriage trains, made possible by the lengthening of platforms at Grindleford, Hathersage and Hope earlier this year.
To be fair, in normal times there are a lot of apparently overseas students at universities and other educational institutions in Manchester and Sheffield who precisely fit your criteria. The Hope Valley local trains are often packed with them at appropriate times of year.
It isn't just students. In my experience it's a good mix of people.
It might not be financially, but in usage terms it's a rare story of success for a rural line, helped by the fact that the stations are ideal places to start a walk. Big cities at both ends (with low car ownership, I guess), lowish fares and short journey times add up to it being a perfect weekend day out from both Manchester and Sheffield (which is why it needs to continue operating through).
It isn't just students. In my experience it's a good mix of people.
It might not be financially, but in usage terms it's a rare story of success for a rural line, helped by the fact that the stations are ideal places to start a walk. Big cities at both ends (with low car ownership, I guess), lowish fares and short journey times add up to it being a perfect weekend day out from both Manchester and Sheffield (which is why it needs to continue operating through).
The figures for passenger numbers and ticket revenue might look even better if it wasn't for Piccadilly being the only station with any regular ticket inspection. The Saturday trains I noted above were so jam packed the guards could hardly get aboard themselves, let alone check or sell tickets. Allegedly not a few regular users may have relied on that! A recent TPE spot blockade caught 6 of them one night, but it didn't make it into the recent TV series that was being filmed, probably because they'd all got off a Northern train. Apparently all from TPE trains had valid tickets.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's often said that there aren't enough paths for freight. After completion of the Capacity Scheme there'll only be a few extra freight paths available so that certainly tends to support that view. The Buxton quarries are working flat out and will be generating more traffic.
That over simplifies the matter as there are other factors to take into account. Sidings around Buxton are inadequate to hold sufficient empty wagons so many are held at Barrow Hill and Toton. Paths have to be booked to bring them in as required. (Sometimes empty wagons coming from the west side come all the way through the Valley to be held until needed, before being dragged back!) Sometimes wagons can't be unloaded fast enough to get back in time for new loads, a problem after flooding and other disruptions. Paths are also booked for light engine movements to and from Barrow Hill and Toton for servicing.
Before adding up the unused paths it has to be noted that several are either/or paths, the route up or down the Hope Valley being the same but origin or destinations will be different. An example is 12.44 when there are 4 possible destinations booked. That is often used.
Paths at 12.53/4 and 13.26 are very, very rarely used. Paths to Cottam Power Station were still appearing until very recently although it closed a year ago. West Burton Power Station is kept on standby most of the time, will be closing soon and using little limestone in the scrubbers. Paths are booked in every day but rarely used. Many freight services start early or late and present that way in the Hope Valley. The unused paths often allow flexibility without impeding other services.
However, the existence of these paths, often unused, means timetabled passenger services have to work around them. Northern has a franchise commitment to provide a regular hourly stopping service at all Hope Valley stations. It can't due to these paths and has to skip stop several services. When the freights actually run it's understandable. As an example it's hard to see why the 13.14 Northern service out of Sheffield is unable to stop at Dore, Hathersage and Edale even if they did all run.
Signalling it seems, a 6 minute headway through Totley Tunnel! You'd have thought that could be worked around, but apparently not. Surely solving issues like that would be a lot cheaper than making plans for reopening other lines in 10-15 years time, at best?
Tempting people out their cars is good, and it is something the railway should do more of. However, it is not the railway's only function. It is there as a public service, to provide fast acess to places all across the country for those who cannot or do not drive. Retaining acess to places of leasure and open countryside is important and increases the quality of life and wellbeing for car-less people. And ultimately, public transport will often struggle to compete on a journey by journey basis with the car, as once you have sunk the time and money into it, the per journey cost is fairly low. Public transport comes as a package and giving people fast acess from city centres to stunning countryside is an important and appealing part for those considering parking up the car, or not buying one in the first place.
So, I see the local service on Hope as important. It doesn't cost that much to run in the grand scheme of things, it can get pretty decent loadings at a reasonable, if inconsistent, frequency and gives a more sustainable transportation option out to the countryside.
So, back to the capacity question. I will also point out that when the Hope Stopper is quiet, Northern sell cheap advance tickets, so it functions as a good budget option for people travelling between Sheffield and Manchester. First capacity scheme, longer trains and electrification will help. HS2 may offer faster journeys to the East Midlands from Liverpool/Manchester via Birmingham, but it could be fairly costly due to the distance you'd end up covering.
One of the other potential issues is the bit of line just past Stockport, going through Hazel Grove. Pretty busy bit of two track line, especially with one service terminating in Hazel Grove, on top of 8tph to/from Manchester-Sheffield/Buxton. The Hope Valley stopper takes the other route, so doesn't add to that. Hope Valley capacity project will add another 2tph, so it seems possible that any more than that (11tph) and it could start to get a bit congested. Adding a terminating platform at Hazel Grove might be an idea, saves moving in and out of that siding as well.
Is there that much local traffic? If not, Regardless of the Northern contract, would it not be better to have skip stopping on the few trains (including EMR and TPE)?
I think that otherwise, running via Dore is pretty done now and other than 4 tracking the whole way (including the tunnel) there isn't much which can be done, I think any future flows would need to be looked at via Crewe. (Via Chinley, then the Mid Cheshire Line to Northwich and down past Middlewich). To accommodate this, I think I would propose a link up the New Mills fast avoid line to the Buxton line (at their closest point, I work out that it's only 160m) or a link near Chapel-en-the-Frith station between the Buxton line and the freight line. I think this would be needed so that TPE services can continue without interruption as not sure if trains would get from the junction at Chinley all the way to the Hazel Grove - Sharston freight line. You'd also then need a curve linking the Buxton line to the freight only line near Hazel Grove. Possibly some signalling improvements on the Mid Cheshire then as well to reduce blocks. I can't see any way forward with the route via Dore without skip stopping.
If traffic is still rising, eventually a new Pennine 'base tunnel' should be built, which will solve the capacity (and journey time) issues for many years hence. This tunnel may be built for other reasons than increasing capacity of existing lines (such as speed), and therefore may be ahead of the ultimate capacity crunch.
Having seen the discussion on another thread, where the dislocation to passenger services, both actual and potential, by freights on the Hope Valley line, is laid out, I find it amazing that any mention of a permanent solution involving reopening Peaks and Dales is immediately shot down as "crayonista".
Not only would Peaks and Dales remove the vast majority of the offending freights from the quarries moving east and south, it would also provide direct passenger services form the north west to east midlands relieving pressure on the Hope Valley. It would even relieve pressure caused by cement trains to Hope by enabling an anti clockwise routing of trains in and out of the cement works, freeing the Hope Valley eastbound line from conflicting moves.
Having seen the discussion on another thread, where the dislocation to passenger services, both actual and potential, by freights on the Hope Valley line, is laid out, I find it amazing that any mention of a permanent solution involving reopening Peaks and Dales is immediately shot down as "crayonista".
Not only would Peaks and Dales remove the vast majority of the offending freights from the quarries moving east and south, it would also provide direct passenger services form the north west to east midlands relieving pressure on the Hope Valley. It would even relieve pressure caused by cement trains to Hope by enabling an anti clockwise routing of trains in and out of the cement works, freeing the Hope Valley eastbound line from conflicting moves.
It's a nice idea in theory but feels very Solution In Need Of A Problem.
For a start, the main passenger flows are between Sheffield and Manchester - even if you ran an East Midland - Manchester service via Matlock the nature of the Matlock line mean that it's not going to be much faster for such journeys than the status quo (around 1h45 from Nottingham to Manchester every hour, the Derby to Manchester times can be around 1h30 if you get a good connection - and with four fast trains per hour from Derby to Sheffield there's not too much waiting around). You're not going to get much faster than that via Matlock, especially if your main justification for the Matlock line is that you can dump slow freight trains on it to get them off the Hope Valley (and then there's suggestions that there'd have to be long bits of single track to accommodate the popular Monsall Trail)
And even if you can path the East Midlands - Manchester passenger services between the freights to give a much faster direct journey, that's not going to free up a lot of seats on the existing Hope Valley "fasts", given the numbers involved - given that the Hope Valley "fasts" are significantly shorter than Sheffield Midland/ Stockport/ Manchester Piccadilly can accommodate, it'd be a lot easier to extend them by a carriage or two than to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a new line for the lower number of East Midlands - Manchester passengers.
Sticking in a second line at Dore would be such a simple/ cheap thing, in the grand scheme of things, it'd remove a lot of the capacity problems (especially if you make the line north of Dore at least three tracks). Building dozens of miles of railway through the Peak District terrain is going to be a lot more complicated/ costly (and good luck getting planning permission for some parts, given the planners' reluctance to even add a passing loop around Grindleford).
And, as you say, the Hope cement works are at Hope, so you'd still have to accommodate them on the Hope Valley line - even if you come up with an anti clockwise route for them you couldn't run any more eastbound passenger services than westbound ones, so it wouldn't really free up much capacity.
A line through Matlock would be better than a line through Woodhead (since the two are often discussed as an either/or), a line through Matlock would be better than no line through Matlock, but it'd be too expensive for the benefits that it brings and (IMHO) is generally suggested as something that solves several different problems that it can't do all at once (e.g. it's a way to dump slow moving freight away from existing bottlenecks but it's also often suggested as a route for competitive St Pancras - Manchester services... there's going to be space for local services stopping at little places like Bakewell but it's also going to be a faster route for Nottingham - Manchester passengers... you can have single track sections to accommodate the Monsall Trail but also it'll allow the non-stop services to overtake the slow freight/passenger services - it's a miracle cure to many things but one line can't cover all of those bases)
Having seen the discussion on another thread, where the dislocation to passenger services, both actual and potential, by freights on the Hope Valley line, is laid out, I find it amazing that any mention of a permanent solution involving reopening Peaks and Dales is immediately shot down as "crayonista".
Not only would Peaks and Dales remove the vast majority of the offending freights from the quarries moving east and south, it would also provide direct passenger services form the north west to east midlands relieving pressure on the Hope Valley. It would even relieve pressure caused by cement trains to Hope by enabling an anti clockwise routing of trains in and out of the cement works, freeing the Hope Valley eastbound line from conflicting moves.
Peaks and Dales should be a separate thread, yet I can't seem to find one. Maybe this should be renamed?
There are many issues around that but they are far more wide reaching than within the subject of this thread. All I'd say is that if the decision to close hadn't been made almost 60 years ago, and the line from Ambergate to Matlock maintained as it has since, it would have been an excellent alternative route. But it was closed and over the last 50 years much has happened from Ambergate towards Buxton and Chinley that make reopening a very expensive proposition that could take a decade to get approved and another to achieve. The imminent Hope Valley scheme wil alleviate the congestion through the valley within 3 years and further work can do more.
Reducing congestion around places like Manchester, Leeds, Doncaster and Sheffield would be better value for money in the North.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
