Beeching & beyond Lines that should have been kept open

[yorksrob]

Which stations on the "stoppers" could justify a half hourly service?

Dore and Chinley both could, I reckon. Hathersage and Hope may see a lot more demand if the frequency was better than the 272 bus. Not sure about the others though:

Dore - 106,224
Grindleford - 55,352
Hathersage - 56,445
Bamford - 25,054
Hope - 53,440
Edale - 72,756
Chinley - 103,130

It might not necessarily be another stopper. With less congestion from freight and long distance passenger services, you could maybe have a semi fast going slightly further afield but still providing a better service to the Hope valley.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It might not necessarily be another stopper. With less congestion from freight and long distance passenger services, you could maybe have a semi fast going slightly further afield but still providing a better service to the Hope valley.

Slightly off-topic as such a service never existed even pre-Beeching, but I've often wondered how viable a 'Summer only' service leaving the Hope Valley line at Earles Sidings and shuttling along the cement works branch to a new station at Castleton (Derbys.) would be. I imagine the fact that the line misses out one of the major settlements (and tourist hotspots) of the valley has long been a bugbear of both railway managers and of the local populace... Perhaps once all the wires are up and we've got spare DMUs coming out of our ears!

*hides under desk!*

 

[Darren R]

Was Project Rio really marketed as providing greater links from the North West to the East Midlands though. This isn't a criticism of Midland Mainline - the service was provided as a temporary solution to fill a gap in London - Manchester services, so it's perhaps not surprising that this aspect might not have been pushed, but how do you expect those potential travellers to know about the new service ?

I used the Project Rio services several times during the WCML works and I generally had the carriage to myself most of the way. Loadings were always light (in my experience anyway.) The problem was that these trains just weren't given much publicity at all - it was hardly surprising they weren't used: virtually no-one knew about them! Additionally the journey times weren't attractive. Even with all the disruption, it was still usually quicker to travel to Manchester from Euston. The only reason I used them was to be able to travel via the Hope Valley, and judging by what fellow travellers had to say this was commonplace!

MML were paid to run them, their costs were guaranteed to be covered, and so had no particular incentive to promote them - and Virgin sure as Hell weren't gonna! Loadings on these services can't be used as the basis to measure potential demand. Personally I think, if properly marketed, there was - is - potential for regular services between St Pancras and Piccadilly - both in terms of new journey opportunities and to provide some competition with Virgin. You can't compete on end-to-end journey times of course, but you can on price and on-board service. (I always found MML's on-board service far superior to Virgin's.)

That said - it's difficult to see how much of a fight such a service would put up against Virgin's VHF timetable.

 

[yorksrob]

I used the Project Rio services several times during the WCML works and I generally had the carriage to myself most of the way. Loadings were always light (in my experience anyway.) The problem was that these trains just weren't given much publicity at all - it was hardly surprising they weren't used: virtually no-one knew about them! Additionally the journey times weren't attractive. Even with all the disruption, it was still usually quicker to travel to Manchester from Euston. The only reason I used them was to be able to travel via the Hope Valley, and judging by what fellow travellers had to say this was commonplace!

MML were paid to run them, their costs were guaranteed to be covered, and so had no particular incentive to promote them - and Virgin sure as Hell weren't gonna! Loadings on these services can't be used as the basis to measure potential demand. Personally I think, if properly marketed, there was - is - potential for regular services between St Pancras and Piccadilly - both in terms of new journey opportunities and to provide some competition with Virgin. You can't compete on end-to-end journey times of course, but you can on price and on-board service. (I always found MML's on-board service far superior to Virgin's.)

That said - it's difficult to see how much of a fight such a service would put up against Virgin's VHF timetable.

Thanks for the insight (sadly I wasn't able to use it myself).

Perhaps given the propensity of large numbers to travel using advanced fares, I suspect that they could carve out a niche on fares to London. This certainly echoes my experience of using GC and EC between Wakefield and London (I use both a fair bit).

Of course, the reinstatement of Matlock - Buxton should hopefully speed up the timings of the route a little !

 

[Darren R]

Of course, the reinstatement of Matlock - Buxton should hopefully speed up the timings of the route a little !

To be honest the main reason I used the Project Rio trains through from St Pancras to Piccadilly was because it was close as I was ever going to get to travelling the old Midland route all the way! Should the day ever dawn that there is a service via the Peak I would definitely use it! (Just not sure that's a good enough business case for the DfT!)

 

[Passenger John]

How about Kings Lynn - Hunstanton, should never had been closed in the first place, would have been a really useful link to the coast from Cambridge, Stevenage etc. also serves Sandringham House and Heacham for the Lavender Centre.

 

[Amy Worrall]

Slightly off-topic as such a service never existed even pre-Beeching, but I've often wondered how viable a 'Summer only' service leaving the Hope Valley line at Earles Sidings and shuttling along the cement works branch to a new station at Castleton (Derbys.) would be. I imagine the fact that the line misses out one of the major settlements (and tourist hotspots) of the valley has long been a bugbear of both railway managers and of the local populace... Perhaps once all the wires are up and we've got spare DMUs coming out of our ears!

*hides under desk!*

Does the cement works branch go near enough to Castleton that a station would be viable? Or are you proposing building some new track?

 

[edwin_m]

The Northern Hub includes proposals for extra services on the Hope Valley, which will require extra infrastructure including re-doubling the single line through Dore. I think the service pattern will be an hourly local and three fasts per hour, but I don't think it has been decided where the third fast goes to as this depends on issues such as capacity at Sheffield which are not part of Northern Hub.

 

[FenMan]

How about Kings Lynn - Hunstanton, should never had been closed in the first place, would have been a really useful link to the coast from Cambridge, Stevenage etc. also serves Sandringham House and Heacham for the Lavender Centre.

The bus service between Lynn and Hunstantion is excellent and very popular at holiday times, however I'd question the need to rebuild a line that would require a reversal at Lynn and electrified infrastructure.

I'm still dreaming of the Lynn - Norwich line being reopened though. Norfolk would become much more "joined up" if the county's two major commercial centres had a better public transport link than the notorious X1 bus.

 

[Invincibles]

I used the Project Rio services several times during the WCML works and I generally had the carriage to myself most of the way. Loadings were always light (in my experience anyway.) The problem was that these trains just weren't given much publicity at all - it was hardly surprising they weren't used: virtually no-one knew about them! Additionally the journey times weren't attractive. Even with all the disruption, it was still usually quicker to travel to Manchester from Euston. The only reason I used them was to be able to travel via the Hope Valley, and judging by what fellow travellers had to say this was commonplace!

This is consistent with my experience, though there were some days it was busy and to be sure of a table seat I did often head well away from the buffers at Piccadilly.

However the train did not stop in the midlands, and I think this is the important thing. It only ever really served Leicester.

It might be interesting to see what would happen if the second Sheffield to London was sent through the Erewash Valley and the Manchester train went through Derby picking up the Long Eaton stop. I do not even think the train needs to continue to London, it could terminate at Bedford and provide a second train for places like Market Harborough (speeding up the fast Nottingham), Kettering and Wellingborough that gave connections north. In the longer term it could continue via EW.

Long Eaton would lose a London train, and Derby would be reduced to just the fast train each hour (only stop being Leicester). The question would be whether this meant problems for Derby or whether the likely lighter loadings from Sheffield (since the train via Erewash would be the fastest London train ex Sheffield) would create enough space for Derby passengers.

The problem is services like this would definitely not help the business case for Buxton - Matlock

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is services like this would definitely not help the business case for Buxton - Matlock

Not necessarily. It could be argued that the Manchester train would be quicker and could potentially pick up additional patronage at Bakewell for example.

 

[tbtc]

However the train did not stop in the midlands, and I think this is the important thing. It only ever really served Leicester

Its a problem of how to "serve" the East Midlands with any proposed Manchester service.

At the moment only Nottingham has a direct service (some Regional Railways "Cross Country*" services from Manchester used to run via Loughborough - Leicester - Melton Mowbray to get to Peterborough instead of the current "Grantham" route, but this was dropped along with places like Blackpool/ Ipswich). Can't remember the timings, but going back to the Leicester route would keep the 90mph 158s off the 125mph ECML between Grantham and Peterborough.

Running a Manchester - Derby - Leicester service like you propose would tick two boxes, but may mean cutting the existing Manchester - Nottingham link (since there are better things that could be done with its paths, like Manchester - Sheffield - Hull and Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds).

One alternative for CP6 may be wiring the Uttoxeter line and providing a Manchester - Stoke - Derby - Nottingham EMU - even with the speed of the current Northern stopper to Stoke and EMT Sprinter to Derby, it can be comparable in journey times with the Sheffield route - even more so if 100mph EMUs could be sourced instead of the 90mph EMUs/ 75mph DMUs on the two legs).

The five thousand people of Bakewell may not agree, of course.

(* - not to be confused with XC - this was the precursor to the current EMT Liverpool - Norwich service - it used to have more variety of route/ destinations)

 

[edwin_m]

(some Regional Railways "Cross Country*" services from Manchester used to run via Loughborough - Leicester - Melton Mowbray to get to Peterborough instead of the current "Grantham" route, but this was dropped along with places like Blackpool/ Ipswich). Can't remember the timings, but going back to the Leicester route would keep the 90mph 158s off the 125mph ECML between Grantham and Peterborough.

They never went via Leicester, except perhaps as diversions or start/end of day. The route was Loughborough, cross to the slow lines at Sileby and via the north to east curve at Syston. If it had gone into Leicester as well then I think four reversals would be some kind of record for a through service (Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Ely).

I think there is scope for a Manchester-Derby-Leicester service in the future via either Bakewell or Dore South. Manchester-Sheffield-Worksop-Lincoln was also suggested on the Lincolnshre thread.

 

[tbtc]

They never went via Leicester, except perhaps as diversions or start/end of day. The route was Loughborough, cross to the slow lines at Sileby and via the north to east curve at Syston. If it had gone into Leicester as well then I think four reversals would be some kind of record for a through service (Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Ely)

Sorry, didn't realise they ran round the chord to avoid Leicester - apologies

 

[yorksrob]

Its a problem of how to "serve" the East Midlands with any proposed Manchester service.

At the moment only Nottingham has a direct service (some Regional Railways "Cross Country*" services from Manchester used to run via Loughborough - Leicester - Melton Mowbray to get to Peterborough instead of the current "Grantham" route, but this was dropped along with places like Blackpool/ Ipswich). Can't remember the timings, but going back to the Leicester route would keep the 90mph 158s off the 125mph ECML between Grantham and Peterborough.

Running a Manchester - Derby - Leicester service like you propose would tick two boxes, but may mean cutting the existing Manchester - Nottingham link (since there are better things that could be done with its paths, like Manchester - Sheffield - Hull and Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds).

One alternative for CP6 may be wiring the Uttoxeter line and providing a Manchester - Stoke - Derby - Nottingham EMU - even with the speed of the current Northern stopper to Stoke and EMT Sprinter to Derby, it can be comparable in journey times with the Sheffield route - even more so if 100mph EMUs could be sourced instead of the 90mph EMUs/ 75mph DMUs on the two legs).

The five thousand people of Bakewell may not agree, of course
(* - not to be confused with XC - this was the precursor to the current EMT Liverpool - Norwich service - it used to have more variety of route/ destinations)

The beauty is of course, that a Manchester-Derby-Leicester via Matlock service would use a completely different route and serve different settlements from the Nottingham service so the railway would be free to decide whether to keep the current paths for Nottingham or use them for other purposes.

 

[Eagle]

Sorry, didn't realise they ran round the chord to avoid Leicester - apologies

One or two a day still do this (mainly for route knowledge). I think it was more common in the days when it was all Central though.


Also I've just remembered that there have at various times been XC services from Derby to Manchester via Birmingham, although I can't imagine anyone using it as a through service.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Regarding re-opening the Midland route through the Peak District, if we wanted to speed up journeys between Manchester and the East Midlands trains would surely have to go via Chinley rather than Buxton. Don't forget that Buxton trains were operated as a branch line service from Millers Dale. Of course the problem here is that you miss out Sheffield.

In terms of running trains between Derby and Buxton, although Derby University has a campus at Buxton it's hard to think of other reasons that might justify introducing trains. People living in Buxton are far more likely to work and shop in Manchester than they are in Derby. The one thing that might justify a weekend Dales Rail service would be to re-open all the stations between Chinley and Matlock including the likes of Monsal Head and Millers Dale. In which case I think reasonably timed services from Derby and Manchester would be very popular.

I certainly think there is justification for re-opening the route for freight but we need to consider the anticipated life time of the various quarries. No limestone equals no cement equals no freight!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regarding re-opening the Midland route through the Peak District, if we wanted to speed up journeys between Manchester and the East Midlands trains would surely have to go via Chinley rather than Buxton. Don't forget that Buxton trains were operated as a branch line service from Millers Dale. Of course the problem here is that you miss out Sheffield.

I don't think I'd see the case as being one of speeding up journeys, but as one of providing through journeys not currently available. Reopening Matlock-Buxton would mean you have a through service Derby-Manchester (via Buxton) AND the current through service Nottingham-Manchester (via Sheffield). I would imagine that even though the Derby-Manchester service is slowed somewhat by the need to divert to Buxton, it would still be very competitive with changing trains at Sheffield (which in itself is quite a diversion).

 

[Invincibles]

Its a problem of how to "serve" the East Midlands with any proposed Manchester service.

At the moment only Nottingham has a direct service (some Regional Railways "Cross Country*" services from Manchester used to run via Loughborough - Leicester - Melton Mowbray to get to Peterborough instead of the current "Grantham" route, but this was dropped along with places like Blackpool/ Ipswich). Can't remember the timings, but going back to the Leicester route would keep the 90mph 158s off the 125mph ECML between Grantham and Peterborough.

Running a Manchester - Derby - Leicester service like you propose would tick two boxes, but may mean cutting the existing Manchester - Nottingham link (since there are better things that could be done with its paths, like Manchester - Sheffield - Hull and Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds).

One alternative for CP6 may be wiring the Uttoxeter line and providing a Manchester - Stoke - Derby - Nottingham EMU - even with the speed of the current Northern stopper to Stoke and EMT Sprinter to Derby, it can be comparable in journey times with the Sheffield route - even more so if 100mph EMUs could be sourced instead of the 90mph EMUs/ 75mph DMUs on the two legs).

The five thousand people of Bakewell may not agree, of course.

(* - not to be confused with XC - this was the precursor to the current EMT Liverpool - Norwich service - it used to have more variety of route/ destinations)

Quite probably so, and not withstanding the point about Leicester not being served I think you are right.

What it seems to me is that there are two very viable options that could be trialled to see what the demand for Manchester to the East Midlands truly is before any pouring of money into reopening the line through Bakewell.

I think any plans for that line should be premised on the benefits to local traffic through the peak district, freight and possibly markets like Matlock - Manchester or Buxton - Derby/Nottingham. That is unless the through market can be proved by other services.

 

[yorksrob]

The through market is already proved by the presence of the (as I understand it) currently overcrowded Manchester - Nottingham service. Why reinvent the wheel. The fact that these trains are often crowded, even though it takes the long way round, proves that there is a demand (likely surpressed ) for travel between the two regions. As tcbc suggests, there may well be a more optimal way to use the existing routes were the direct line available as well.

The question always asked is whether heavy rail is the best option for a given route. This is one of the best ones precisely because there are these different potential uses for the line. Local, regional, potentially interCity, freight and diversionary. To deliberately ignore one of these potentials seems like stacking the cards in favour of the default position "anything but a reopening".

 

[A0]

The through market is already proved by the presence of the (as I understand it) currently overcrowded Manchester - Nottingham service. Why reinvent the wheel. The fact that these trains are often crowded, even though it takes the long way round, proves that there is a demand (likely surpressed ) for travel between the two regions. As tcbc suggests, there may well be a more optimal way to use the existing routes were the direct line available as well.

Not quite true (the bit in bold) - you're jumping to a conclusion there.

The fact is the trains in question are running from Liverpool - Norwich and just happen to be taking in Manchester and Nottingham en-route - unless you have empirical proof that they aren't crowded before Manchester and after Nottingham?

A far better 'test' of whether there is really demand between the two points would be ticket sales between Manchester stations and Nottingham.

Interestingly the Rio services were widely felt to be under-used despite the fact they connected Leicester to Manchester.

There may be a case for strengthening the existing Norwich - Liverpool service - it's often raised on these boards, but then usually with some hare-brained suggestion like 'use HSTs on it' or similar, which is unrealistic and will never happen.

Equally the case for strengthening existing services doesn't automatically equate to 'reopening closed routes'.

Matlock - Buxton doesn't have anywhere significant en-route so to make it viable you're assuming that most of the traffic on the existing services would switch, plus you'd gain extra traffic - I reckon that's a dodgy assumption.

 

[yorksrob]

You‘re making the assumption that Liverpool -Norwich passengers wouldn‘t also benefit from faster journey times and a more direct route. Remember, I mentioned better links between the North West and East Midlands. The same is true for regions beyond.

This also doesn‘t negate my point that more capacity is now available between both the East Midlands and Sheffield and Sheffield and Manchester. These are both routes that might have a better use than a roundabout Liverpool - East Anglia wander. Remember, the study highlighted by The Planner found that a large number of people would switch to the route from other corridors. They saw this as a weakness in the business case. As I have explained, this should actually be seen as a strength.

Also, Both Matlock and Bath are sizeable settlements, both of which are somewhat out on a limb. They have a few smaller towns between them and an area of high tourist potential. This route needs to be reopened.

 

[edwin_m]

Also, Both Matlock and Bath are sizeable settlements...

Eh? Are we back to the S&D again, are you referring to Matlock Bath or do you mean Buxton (which I suppose is a spa after all!).

 

[yorksrob]

Eh? Are we back to the S&D again, are you referring to Matlock Bath or do you mean Buxton (which I suppose is a spa after all!).

Apologies Edwin_m, you are quite correct - I was getting my Georgian Spa‘s mixed up

 

[HowardGWR]

Apologies Edwin_m, you are quite correct - I was getting my Georgian Spa‘s mixed up

I think we should just be grateful that the cyclists have preserved the formation. It won't be pretty when they are edged out but it has to be.

Yes it is painful but the greater good, etc.

 

[yorksrob]

I think we should just be grateful that the cyclists have preserved the formation. It won't be pretty when they are edged out but it has to be.

Yes it is painful but the greater good, etc.

Indeed. It would be a shame if a good way of preserving a route were to become an obstacle to its reopening.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A far better 'test' of whether there is really demand between the two points would be ticket sales between Manchester stations and Nottingham.

I have to admit I don't follow the logic there. If the Matlock-Buxton line were reopened then surely the main town it would come to would be *Derby*. It's possible that trains might proceed from there to Nottingham, but that's not guaranteed, and besides Manchester to Nottingham passengers would still have the train via Sheffield. So it seems unlikely to me that Manchester-Nottingham ticket sales would be that relevant to any reopening. The main benefit of the reopening is more likely to be from providing new journey opportunities. And since those would be *new* opportunities, existing ticket sales are unlikely to give much guidance. I'd expect you could get a better guidance by looking at the overall populations of the towns that would be connected, the number of tourist visitors (to Bakewell) and the level of any existing car-based commuter flows along the route.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don't think I'd see the case as being one of speeding up journeys, but as one of providing through journeys not currently available. Reopening Matlock-Buxton would mean you have a through service Derby-Manchester (via Buxton) AND the current through service Nottingham-Manchester (via Sheffield). I would imagine that even though the Derby-Manchester service is slowed somewhat by the need to divert to Buxton, it would still be very competitive with changing trains at Sheffield (which in itself is quite a diversion).

But as I've already outlined in post 197 I don't see that there is anything to be gained by running services via Buxton, other than to make life slightly eassier for students at Derby Uni. And given that a considerable amount of time will be saved by running via Peak Forest as opposed to Sheffield (or even Dore) then that has to be seen as significant? I don't think that by introducing new services via Peak Forest there would be an automatic reduction in current services via Sheffield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd expect you could get a better guidance by looking at the overall populations of the towns that would be connected, the number of tourist visitors (to Bakewell) and the level of any existing car-based commuter flows along the route.

Whilst the Peak District National Park is very popuar with tourists the number of commuters from the Peak District into Derby is very low because the towns and villages are small. However I think a Dales Rail type service would be very popular. No need run a Dales Rail service via Buxton though.

 

[Mitch in Notts]

The fact is the trains in question are running from Liverpool - Norwich and just happen to be taking in Manchester and Nottingham en-route - unless you have empirical proof that they aren't crowded before Manchester and after Nottingham?

A far better 'test' of whether there is really demand between the two points would be ticket sales between Manchester stations and Nottingham.



There may be a case for strengthening the existing Norwich - Liverpool service - it's often raised on these boards, but then usually with some hare-brained suggestion like 'use HSTs on it' or similar, which is unrealistic and will never happen.

.

Trains are (now) mostly 4 car Manchester to Nottingham. 2 car Nottingham to Norwich. There appears to be only limited through travel across Nottingham (certainly when boarding at Norwich most reservations are as far as Nottingham or before - though perhaps that varies depending on the time of day). The Northern Rail Leeds to Nottingham was partly put on to ease overcrowding on Sheffield to Nottingham. Prior to the arrival of the Northern service it was not unusual to get on at Langley Mill and stand all the way to Sheffield (with EMT) never mind those joining at Alfreton, Chesterfield etc.

 

[yorksrob]

But as I've already outlined in post 197 I don't see that there is anything to be gained by running services via Buxton, other than to make life slightly eassier for students at Derby Uni. And given that a considerable amount of time will be saved by running via Peak Forest as opposed to Sheffield (or even Dore) then that has to be seen as significant? I don't think that by introducing new services via Peak Forest there would be an automatic reduction in current services via Sheffield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Whilst the Peak District National Park is very popuar with tourists the number of commuters from the Peak District into Derby is very low because the towns and villages are small. However I think a Dales Rail type service would be very popular. No need run a Dales Rail service via Buxton though.

I would very much be in favour of reinstating the triangular junction at the Nippers Dale end. An extra junction and a short amount of extra track.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But as I've already outlined in post 197 I don't see that there is anything to be gained by running services via Buxton, other than to make life slightly eassier for students at Derby Uni. And given that a considerable amount of time will be saved by running via Peak Forest as opposed to Sheffield (or even Dore) then that has to be seen as significant? I don't think that by introducing new services via Peak Forest there would be an automatic reduction in current services via Sheffield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Whilst the Peak District National Park is very popuar with tourists the number of commuters from the Peak District into Derby is very low because the towns and villages are small. However I think a Dales Rail type service would be very popular. No need run a Dales Rail service via Buxton though.

I would very much be in favour of reinstating the triangular junction at Millers dale end. An extra junction and a short amount of extra track.