-
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!
Derby Telegraph "Plans to convert Monsal Trail back into railway takes 'significant step forward'"
- Thread starter pint
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 3,684
Unless there is a Bakewell Bypass you don't ged rid of that bottleneck. It isn't quick negotiating Matlock either on a busy day.
Killingworth
Established Member
More popular. probably, but certainly not cheap. The easy bits have already been improved but dualling through the National Park would be an enormously challenging project. Ashwood Dale needs to be driven to appreciate that.
Baxenden Bank
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 4,759
Double Deck for Ashwood Dale?
That‘s a good point.
Given that the purpose of improving transport links is to enable more people to get from where they are to where they want to be (to improve social mobility, productivity, economic output, and thus the standard of living) an ‘occaisional train‘ that might deliver a few hundred people an hour is surely going to come second to a ’duel (sic) carriageway with continual traffic’ that implies a few thousand people an hour.
Which would you rather have running through a National park ?
Killingworth
Established Member
That's not a realistic choice. Both would/will be fiercely resisted! Although nobody has seriously proposed dualling any, let alone significant, parts of the A6.
Those resisting should take a trip along the Settle & Carlisle or the Hope Valley and stop off along the way.
A railway, like a country road (that isn't too full of hurtling traffic) can enhance the countryside.
A motorway does not.
Neither. Use the existing road, which was there first.
I don't drive.
But you can get a bus.
I find buses uncomfortable for long periods.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,728
That isnt going to miraculously tip a business case over to building it, especially since a lot of modern buses have seats that rival trains.
This sounds as though the rail industry needs to buck its ideas up on train seating.
But I take your point. My discomfort of buses is minor compared to the myriad reasons why a good train service through the peak district would be superb for the area, just as the S&C is for the Dales.
What are the other benefits you're talking about then? Perhaps you could clarify.
-Accessibility for visitors,
-Travel opportunities for locals for work, education and leisure
-More customers for local businesses without increasing road congestion.
It would also provide wider network benefits outside of the local area - more resilience, more paths for freight etc.
None of this is particularly unknown.
OK. But you're being asked to explain how the benefits of the train would be greater than the benefits of the bus?
To be pedantic, no one's asked me that until you did
:The bus is less comfortable, no toilet facilities, generally slower, one would have to change to it, whereas the train would run further into the rest of the network etc.
In its favour, the bus has value for money going for it, with the £2 fare scheme.
Generally I think that there is a place for both bus and rail in the area. The bus for shorter, more local journeys.
My trips between Leeds and Lancaster by bus during the strikes opened my eyes to the value of the bus services but also their limitations.
It was pointed out to you in 404 though, and my reply is to your reply to 404.To be pedantic, no one's asked me that until you did
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don't think any of those hold though do they? A bua can have a toilet, or toilets can be paid for in bus stations. A bus can make about the same time as a hypothetical railway would. A bus can serve Nottingham to Bakewell. How are these things advantages of a hypothetical future bus service over a hypothetical future train service? That's the point that @The Planner was trying to get across to you.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
When you're testing a business case you look at what would happen if you made a change. Unfortunately you can't argue that because you have personal preference for trains they should be valued higher for the whole country.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
So, to take Bakewell as an example. Lady Manners School (secondary) has a catchment from a large part of the Peak District. There are various school buses that run to the site. It is situated on the very edge of Bakewell, diametrically opposite the former station site (which is up a long hill). Believe it or not for a modest market town with a population of around 4,000, the school and station are a 33-minute walk apart (crossing busy roads in the process)!
Could @yorksrob clarify how a re-instated Peak Line would improve access to education in the area?
Could @yorksrob clarify how a re-instated Peak Line would improve access to education in the area?
Maybe in a hypothetical world, buses can have toilets and be as fast as trains.
I just find this not to be the case. And even that hypothetical world doesn't factor in things such as traffic, one way systems etc.
I get that its unlikely that this line is going to be built in the near future because of the prevailing economic circumstances. I just think that people are deluding themselves when they try to argue that buses offer the same product, or serve similar markets as the passenger railway.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How about residents of Matlock studying in Manchester or residents of Buxton studying in Derby ? Much easier to take ones washing home to mum.
Well it's certainly easily possible, it happens already all over the place. For example see most regional routes in Ireland, and Scotland. So what is the core of your point? You personally don't like buses? That's fine if so, nobody said you had to.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Derby to Buxton already has a fast, frequent bus service. What advantages would the train have over the bus in that particular case?
zwk500
Veteran Member
Are we now moving back from a simple stub-end railway to the full secondary main line spec as has been suggested before?
They do substantially exactly the same job as one another in Ireland and Scotland so I don't understand why this is delusional. Have you ever been on a bus there?
zwk500
Veteran Member
So you're suggesting we spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money so that a handful of students (Matlock Pop 10k, Buxton pop 90k, of which a tiny fraction will be at Uni at any one time and of that a tiny fraction will be going to the relevant unis) can take their washing home? If they're that pampered that their mum is still doing their washing for them, they'll be given a car to drive it anyway. This absolutely stinks of clutching at Straws.
I could see the framework of a case for taking over Peak Rail and extending to Bakewell. With a bit of fettling, some sensible timetabling and new trains with a bit more oomph, it's possible to run an hourly service with OTS in principle. You might even be able to set up a Spa Valley Railway type arrangement to let Peak Rail continue alongside the normal service independently. But now it's back to trying to be all things to all people as a through route that'll have loads of spare capacity but will also have a parade of heavy freight trains (from where to where don't ask, that detail's not important) and again the case falls apart as the costs mount up much faster than the benefits.
Last edited:
Matlock to Manchester is about 45 miles as the crow files - that's a 90 mile round trip - equivalent to Wakefield, Stoke or Barnsley to Manchester. Even for a commute for a job, that's above the average, to suggest that as a daily journey for a student is a ridiculous suggestion from both a time and cost perspective.
ChrisC
Established Member
I’m not sure whether I would consider a bus which only runs hourly, with no evening service, and an average end to end journey time of around 2hrs 10mins either fast or frequent. Having said that, I can‘t see any possibility of the railway reopening or justify the expense.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
The bus does, of course, go rather nearer to the centres of Derby, Bakewell and Buxton in particular. It offers multiple stops (by request) in each town along its route. It also serves places like Harpur Hill, Chelmorton, Taddington and Ashford-in-the-Water in which material numbers of people actually live. Whereas the railway north of Matlock makes a poor fist of being close to places that it purported to serve, like Hassop and Great Longstone. Millers Dale is tiny.
Topological
Established Member
Which possibly gives some insight into the likely market for a rail service.
I would love the line to re-open. It has the potential to give a quick journey from the East Midlands to Manchester and remove the current Sheffield reversals. But the numbers are not there to do so.
Road-based solutions appear the best first step. Subsidise the busses for a while, introduce better buses, make something which people want to use and can trust. IF that produces the numbers then the rail option really kicks in.
- Status