Buxton to Matlock - The missing link

[Doctor Fegg]

I was under the impression that the whole proposal involved the re-routing of the path, which by definition must involve another route being made available.

It would be interesting to know what the proposals for re-routing the path actually are.

Both the MEMRAP and Peaks & Dales Railway sites talk confidently about a "re-provisioned and expanded Monsal Trail" and "one part of the project team has already spent many months surveying and re-planning the sections of the Monsal Trail which would need to be re-routed".

But as far as I can tell, no proposals have actually been published, nor even any principles for re-routing the trail (gradients? path width?). You can understand people's anxiety when all that there is, right now, is a vague assurance that "it'll be ok! Trust us!".

(Personally I would be very surprised if the railway were to reopen, but who knows.)

 

[21C101]

No, it really didn't.

Even then Red Star was a relatively expensive way to carry parcels. Nowadays customers expect delivery to their door - not the nearest railway station several miles away.

And parcels as a business is relatively low margin - the failure of City Link a couple of years back showed that.

You really have no idea about commercial viability. Instead you're stuck in a 'it worked in the 1970s and I liked it so it should work now' mentality - unfortunately for you the world has moved on and your way of thinking is at best out of date.

For someone telling others they have no idea about commercial viability you seem quite tramlined.

Innovation is how you attract freight and light goods/parcels are not necessarily low value to the railways, otherwise Orion woudln't exist.

Fill the Erewash Valley route between Clay Cross and Dore up with enough revenue earning trafffic that and the Peak line inevitably has to reopen for the stone traffic.

Rail Operations UK to launch Orion logistics service in April

Rail Operations UK (ROUK) will launch its first rail freight logistics service under its Orion brand in April, ROUK CEO, Mr Karl Watts confirms to IRJ.

www.railjournal.com

 

[yorksrob]

It would be interesting to know what the proposals for re-routing the path actually are.

Both the MEMRAP and Peaks & Dales Railway sites talk confidently about a "re-provisioned and expanded Monsal Trail" and "one part of the project team has already spent many months surveying and re-planning the sections of the Monsal Trail which would need to be re-routed".

But as far as I can tell, no proposals have actually been published, nor even any principles for re-routing the trail (gradients? path width?). You can understand people's anxiety when all that there is, right now, is a vague assurance that "it'll be ok! Trust us!".

(Personally I would be very surprised if the railway were to reopen, but who knows.)

Yes, they should crack on with that.

 

[A0]

For someone telling others they have no idea about commercial viability you seem quite tramlined.

Innovation is how you attract freight and light goods/parcels are not necessarily low value to the railways, otherwise Orion woudln't exist.

Fill the Erewash Valley route between Clay Cross and Dore up with enough revenue earning trafffic that and the Peak line inevitably has to reopen for the stone traffic.

Rail Operations UK to launch Orion logistics service in April

Rail Operations UK (ROUK) will launch its first rail freight logistics service under its Orion brand in April, ROUK CEO, Mr Karl Watts confirms to IRJ.

www.railjournal.com

Orion is a bit part player - and its success is far from guaranteed.

Come back to me in 3 years time and then let's see how Orion is performing - or if it even still exists.

Just out of interest I got Google Maps to list the quarries around the Peak District NP area - here's the map. Now let's try again, which ones benefit from re-opening Matlock - Buxton ? The two close to Buxton *might* if their destination is south, but both are rail-linked already and therefore already use rail to move their output. The rest of them are some distance away from the line.

 

[furnessvale]

Yes, they should crack on with that.

They are "cracking on with that", and many other aspects of the reopening.

It may or may not come as a surprise to this forum that such commercially sensitive material is not being released here.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

It isn't commercially sensitive to promise that "the enhanced trail will have a consistent width of at least 3m and no gradient greater than x%".

I could very happily design an alternative cycle route between Matlock and Buxton that enabled a railway to be reinstated. But I couldn't design one that was as family-friendly (gentle gradients, space for weaving toddlers to co-exist with day-trip cyclists) as the existing Monsal Trail without it costing ££££.

Until the railway promoters give some reassurance that their scheme will indeed be costed to include a high-quality trail, the anxiety is not at all surprising.

 

[A0]

See my posts earlier on in this thread forvwhy the route is a good one for rail.

No you haven't - all you've done is trot out the same old romantic arguments about why there needs to be a passenger service from Derby to Matlock without demonstrating there is any real demand for this.

You've largely ignored freight in your previous posts.

It's a bit like the Guide Bridge thread elsewhere, where you kept changing the goalposts to suit your argument.

Try addressing the points made - starting with mine about why your comment about cyclists is actually false equivalence and then what freight traffic you think this line will handle based on the quarries in the area - given that most of them are nowhere near the line and the 2 near Buxton are already rail linked, so how this reopening will actually help matters, not least due to a lack of capacity south of Ambergate.

 

[The Planner]

Anyone know what the life expectancy of the quarries are at Buxton? Are they looking to expand (an argument in itself in getting over the line) or will they be exhausted in the next 30-40 years?

 

[yorksrob]

No you haven't - all you've done is trot out the same old romantic arguments about why there needs to be a passenger service from Derby to Matlock without demonstrating there is any real demand for this.

You've largely ignored freight in your previous posts.

It's a bit like the Guide Bridge thread elsewhere, where you kept changing the goalposts to suit your argument.

Try addressing the points made - starting with mine about why your comment about cyclists is actually false equivalence and then what freight traffic you think this line will handle based on the quarries in the area - given that most of them are nowhere near the line and the 2 near Buxton are already rail linked, so how this reopening will actually help matters, not least due to a lack of capacity south of Ambergate.

And all you've done is regurgitate the same Beeching era claptrap as usual.

The route would be a useful inter regional link, potentially carrying local and regional passenger traffic as well as relieving the well publicised freight issues in the area.

 

[Greybeard33]

Just out of interest I got Google Maps to list the quarries around the Peak District NP area - here's the map. Now let's try again, which ones benefit from re-opening Matlock - Buxton ? The two close to Buxton *might* if their destination is south, but both are rail-linked already and therefore already use rail to move their output. The rest of them are some distance away from the line.

The rail-connected quarries in the Buxton area are mostly not listed as such on your map, but can clearly be seen as the white areas of devastation in this satellite image:

They are at Dowlow and Hindlow to the south, Tunstead in the centre and Dove Holes to the north. The rail access to the latter two is directly on to the surviving part of the Midland Main Line, which used to continue to Matlock. The Hindlow branch goes to Buxton, where the stone trains reverse to climb up the ex-Midland branch through Wye Dale to Great Rocks.

Most of the stone trains go to the South and the Midlands. They have an existing, satisfactory if somewhat roundabout, route via Peak Forest to Chinley, through the Hope Valley to Dore, then south on the MML through Chesterfield and the Erewash Valley. The problem is that there is a desire to run more passenger trains into Sheffield from the south, both from Manchester via the Hope Valley and from London/Birmingham via HS2, Clay Cross and Chesterfield. The slow, heavy stone trains get in the way of passenger services and there is no easy solution.

 

[A0]

And all you've done is regurgitate the same Beeching era claptrap as usual.

The route would be a useful inter regional link, potentially carrying local and regional passenger traffic as well as relieving the well publicised freight issues in the area.

Nice try but wrong. As I've pointed out several times, this wasn't a Beeching closure - he recommended retaining this and Woodhead and closing Hope Valley - BR did the complete opposite.

Notwithstanding that this 'useful inter-regional link' is claptrap. If you look over the East Midlands cities, you've got Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, of those, Nottingham already has a direct service to / from Manchester and reopening this would make no realistic difference to that journey. Derby is about 60 miles from Manchester - to use as a comparison, Wellinborough to St Pancras is 64 miles, the fastest journey time on that - which let it not be forgotten is a 100 / 125 mph railway using 125mph stock, is about 50 minutes. The line through the peaks won't be that quick, not least because the formation isn't that good and you have to negotiate the approach to Manchester, so let's say Derby - Manchester is an hour at best realistically, currently that's 1h 40m but with a 20 minute interchange at Sheffield, so at best you take 20 mins off that journey. Then you've got Leicester - whether there's demand to travel from Leicester to Manchester is a moot point, but currently it's a shade over 2 hours, at best you'd take 20 mins off that.

Once again, you've failed to address the points I raised and again have moved the goal posts to suit your argument. Is it really that difficult for you to answer questions you don't like ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2021 ==

The rail-connected quarries in the Buxton area are mostly not listed as such on your map, but can clearly be seen as the white areas of devastation in this satellite image:
View attachment 93989
They are at Dowlow and Hindlow to the south, Tunstead in the centre and Dove Holes to the north. The rail access to the latter two is directly on to the surviving part of the Midland Main Line, which used to continue to Matlock. The Hindlow branch goes to Buxton, where the stone trains reverse to climb up the ex-Midland branch through Wye Dale to Great Rocks.

Most of the stone trains go to the South and the Midlands. They have an existing, satisfactory if somewhat roundabout, route via Peak Forest to Chinley, through the Hope Valley to Dore, then south on the MML through Chesterfield and the Erewash Valley. The problem is that there is a desire to run more passenger trains into Sheffield from the south, both from Manchester via the Hope Valley and from London/Birmingham via HS2, Clay Cross and Chesterfield. The slow, heavy stone trains get in the way of passenger services and there is no easy solution.

Fair point on the Buxton area but, BIB, reopening Matlock wouldn't necessarily solve or address any of this, because they'd still have to navigate the MML south of Ambergate, difference is they currently join the MML at Dore, rather than at Ambergate. And quite how running slow freight through the peak line on a 2 track railway, then works with the supposed 'high speed' inter-regional services yorksrob is busy crayoning for the line in addition to the multitude of freights he thinks will go on there is anybody's guess.

 

[yorksrob]

Nice try but wrong. As I've pointed out several times, this wasn't a Beeching closure - he recommended retaining this and Woodhead and closing Hope Valley - BR did the complete opposite.

Notwithstanding that this 'useful inter-regional link' is claptrap. If you look over the East Midlands cities, you've got Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, of those, Nottingham already has a direct service to / from Manchester and reopening this would make no realistic difference to that journey. Derby is about 60 miles from Manchester - to use as a comparison, Wellinborough to St Pancras is 64 miles, the fastest journey time on that - which let it not be forgotten is a 100 / 125 mph railway using 125mph stock, is about 50 minutes. The line through the peaks won't be that quick, not least because the formation isn't that good and you have to negotiate the approach to Manchester, so let's say Derby - Manchester is an hour at best realistically, currently that's 1h 40m but with a 20 minute interchange at Sheffield, so at best you take 20 mins off that journey. Then you've got Leicester - whether there's demand to travel from Leicester to Manchester is a moot point, but currently it's a shade over 2 hours, at best you'd take 20 mins off that.

Once again, you've failed to address the points I raised and again have moved the goal posts to suit your argument. Is it really that difficult for you to answer questions you don't like ?

I referenced the Beeching era, which was in relation to the mindset of much railway management of the time.

The route would enable local trips around Matlock, Bakewell and Buxton, improving local connections and tourist opportunities, it would provide direct jorneys between the North West and East Midlands (which in turn could release capacity on the Hope valley for local and Sheffield trips. It would also alleviate the freight situation.

You quote this theoretical perfect timing of 1 hour twenty via Sheffield if only we could time a shorter connection. Not withstanding the difficulties and risk to journeys of tighter connection times, what is the likelihood of the entire flow of traffic around Sheffield being rearranged to enable this tight connection ? I would suggest very slim.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but do existing services from sheffield to Manchester not also have to negotiate the slow approach to Manchester ? So this can't really be said to be a differential factor against the link via Bakewell.

 

[Greybeard33]

Fair point on the Buxton area but, BIB, reopening Matlock wouldn't necessarily solve or address any of this, because they'd still have to navigate the MML south of Ambergate, difference is they currently join the MML at Dore, rather than at Ambergate.

Previously discussed upthread:

Nevertheless fewer conflicts than at Dore, where HS2 will add 2tph more from Chesterfield to Sheffield, crossing the paths of 4tph of passenger services towards the Hope Valley, before including the freight.

 

[The Planner]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but do existing services from sheffield to Manchester not also have to negotiate the slow approach to Manchester ? So this can't really be said to be a differential factor against the link via Bakewell.

It is if you are adding services on top of those already there. It isn't just the missing link, it is how you facilitate the entire service end to end.

 

[yorksrob]

It is if you are adding services on top of those already there. It isn't just the missing link, it is how you facilitate the entire service end to end.

That's a fair point, but Aowen was specifically arguing about time differences.

On your point, if the E Midlands service were to run via Bakewell, there are currently various services terminating at Hazel Grove. One could theoretically extend one of these services to provide a better local service on the Hope valley as an example.

 

[zwk500]

The route would enable local trips around Matlock, Bakewell and Buxton, improving local connections and tourist opportunities, it would provide direct jorneys between the North West and East Midlands (which in turn could release capacity on the Hope valley for local and Sheffield trips. It would also alleviate the freight situation.

It can't do all 3 at once, because your faster inter-regional services will get trapped behind a slower moving freight or local train.

On your point, if the E Midlands service were to run via Bakewell, there are currently various services terminating at Hazel Grove. One could theoretically extend one of these services to provide a better local service on the Hope valley as an example.

If your intention is to link places east of Derby with Manchester, it can't become a stopping suburban metro service the moment it hits Greater Manchester. If you want to improve connectivity between Nottingham/Leicester and Manchester, you'll do far more people far better favours by getting good links to Sheffield or Leeds for onward connections.

Also, I suspect that Sheffield is a far more important journey point (interchange or destination) than Manchester is to the likes of Leicester/Derby/Nottingham/Chesterfield, in terms of overall connectivity. So losing the sheffield stop in exchange for 10 minutes of the Manchester arrival time will feel like a poor deal.

 

[A0]

That's a fair point, but Aowen was specifically arguing about time differences.

On your point, if the E Midlands service were to run via Bakewell, there are currently various services terminating at Hazel Grove. One could theoretically extend one of these services to provide a better local service on the Hope valley as an example.

The point I was making is you can't miraculously claim a 60 mile rail line will somehow offer you a sub 60 minute journey. In that sense I was pre-empting your likely next tack of why it would be "so much quicker"....

BIB - so now you're saying "let's slow down the Hope Valley services and add risk to a reasonably reliable commuter service" - those services which start at Hazel Grove take almost 30 mins to get to Piccadilly because they are effectively 'inner suburban' services calling at all stations. So currently a service from Edale for example which takes about 45 mins to get to Manchester Piccadilly would now take a longer route to get to Hazel Grove and then 30 mins to get into the centre of Manchester - genuis.

Can I bet on your next post being about how the local services in Manchester need to get out of the way of the longer distance services ? Oh, wait a sec, wrong thread, that's the Guide Bridge one. However since you'll have just tacked an all stations Manchester stopper onto a longer distance service, care to explain how you'd address your contradiction there?

And you've still not addressed the points I previously made - but no surprise there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2021 ==

It can't do all 3 at once, because your faster inter-regional services will get trapped behind a slower moving freight or local train.

No, it's better than that - see my post where he's suggesting extending the Hazel Grove stoppers to become the Hope Valley services, whilst on another thread bemoaning the fact that the Hope Valley services get caught up behind the Glossop services - no contradiction there, no, none at all !

 

[zwk500]

No, it's better than that - see my post where he's suggesting extending the Hazel Grove stoppers to become the Hope Valley services, whilst on another thread bemoaning the fact that the Hope Valley services get caught up behind the Glossop services - no contradiction there, no, none at all !

I'm so, so tempted to suggest tram-trains to Buxton now...

There's the bigger question I asked (on both threads) that he's never answered properly either (on both threads) about who's going to pay. At some point, HM treasury are going to ask for their money back. It will either be provided by additional fare revenue/track access fees from all the extra trains, or by additional tax revenue from economic stimulation. My suspicion is that both together won't cover the cost of the bonds, even at today's interest rates.

 

[yorksrob]

It can't do all 3 at once, because your faster inter-regional services will get trapped behind a slower moving freight or local train.

If your intention is to link places east of Derby with Manchester, it can't become a stopping suburban metro service the moment it hits Greater Manchester. If you want to improve connectivity between Nottingham/Leicester and Manchester, you'll do far more people far better favours by getting good links to Sheffield or Leeds for onward connections.

Also, I suspect that Sheffield is a far more important journey point (interchange or destination) than Manchester is to the likes of Leicester/Derby/Nottingham/Chesterfield, in terms of overall connectivity. So losing the sheffield stop in exchange for 10 minutes of the Manchester arrival time will feel like a poor deal.

You say the route can't perform these different functions, yet Dore to Chinley is expected to (not to mention Guide Bridge to Man Pic by your own argument).

 

[zwk500]

You say the route can't perform these different functions, yet Dore to Chinley is expected to (not to mention Guide Bridge to Man Pic by your own argument).

Dore to Chinley doesn't do it very well, hence it's receiving a capacity upgrade. Guide Bridge to Man Picc doesn't have to deal with freight, and the inter-regional services don't need to hit the same top speed as on the Hope Valley or High Peak would need.

 

[yorksrob]

The point I was making is you can't miraculously claim a 60 mile rail line will somehow offer you a sub 60 minute journey. In that sense I was pre-empting your likely next tack of why it would be "so much quicker"....

BIB - so now you're saying "let's slow down the Hope Valley services and add risk to a reasonably reliable commuter service" - those services which start at Hazel Grove take almost 30 mins to get to Piccadilly because they are effectively 'inner suburban' services calling at all stations. So currently a service from Edale for example which takes about 45 mins to get to Manchester Piccadilly would now take a longer route to get to Hazel Grove and then 30 mins to get into the centre of Manchester - genuis.

Can I bet on your next post being about how the local services in Manchester need to get out of the way of the longer distance services ? Oh, wait a sec, wrong thread, that's the Guide Bridge one. However since you'll have just tacked an all stations Manchester stopper onto a longer distance service, care to explain how you'd address your contradiction there?

And you've still not addressed the points I previously made - but no surprise there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2021 ==



No, it's better than that - see my post where he's suggesting extending the Hazel Grove stoppers to become the Hope Valley services, whilst on another thread bemoaning the fact that the Hope Valley services get caught up behind the Glossop services - no contradiction there, no, none at all !

You really are talking out of the side of your hat.

There is no contradiction between separating out traffic flows between Guide Bridge and Manchester and separating them out between the East Midlands and the North West. With the Bakewell line a passenger express can avoid the Hope valley freight as an example. At present they all have to follow along the same route.

Perhaps the tram fans ought to stick to Blackpool.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2021 ==

Dore to Chinley doesn't do it very well, hence it's receiving a capacity upgrade. Guide Bridge to Man Picc doesn't have to deal with freight, and the inter-regional services don't need to hit the same top speed as on the Hope Valley or High Peak would need.

No, which is why having the option for one or the other to go via Bakewell would help it to do it better.

 

[A0]

I'm so, so tempted to suggest tram-trains to Buxton now...

There's the bigger question I asked (on both threads) that he's never answered properly either (on both threads) about who's going to pay. At some point, HM treasury are going to ask for their money back. It will either be provided by additional fare revenue/track access fees from all the extra trains, or by additional tax revenue from economic stimulation. My suspicion is that both together won't cover the cost of the bonds, even at today's interest rates.

I'd be even more tempted to suggest tram trains between Buxton and Matlock on account of the fact it could be done with less intrusive OHLE

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2021 ==

You really are talking out of the side of your hat.

There is no contradiction between separating out traffic flows between Guide Bridge and Manchester and separating them out between the East Midlands and the North West. With the Bakewell line a passenger express can avoid the Hope valley freight as an example. At present they all have to follow along the same route.

Perhaps the tram fans ought to stick to Blackpool.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2021 ==



No, which is why having the option for one or the other to go via Bakewell would help it to do it better.

Which bit of 'capacity into Manchester' and 'capacity south of Ambergate' do you not understand ? As @The Planner pointed out, you have to consider the end to end journey - you're just looking at the bit in the middle.

And you're the one who suggested extending the Hazel Grove terminators onto the Hope Valley - I just think you're managing to contradict yourself - and so do others by the look of things.

Can I refer you back to post #54 in this thread where in response to a suggested service pattern of "
I'll offer you an alternative:

1tph Derby - Matlock - Buxton (effectively an extension of the Derby - Matlock service).
1 tph semi-fast Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Piccadilly (and extended south of Derby if appropriate)."

You said "This is broadly similar to my view of what ought to happen."

Yet now you're talking about "With the Bakewell line a passenger express can avoid the Hope valley freight as an example." - so which "passenger express" is this ?

Or is it, once again, the yorksrob moving of goalposts.

 

[yorksrob]

"What part of capacity in Manchestet don't you understand"

"You mentioned extending the Hazel Grove service"

You demand answers to the various scenarios that you throw out, to distract from your lack of an argument then when someone answers them you have a petulant hissy fit and accuse them of "moving the goalposts".

 

[zwk500]

"What part of capacity in Manchestet don't you understand"

"You mentioned extending the Hazel Grove service"

You demand answers to the various scenarios that you throw out, to distract from your lack of an argument then when someone answers them you have a petulant hissy fit and accuse them of "moving the goalposts".

No, you've contradicted yourself instead of answering the question 'what do you want the Peak Line to be':

The route would enable local trips... it would provide direct journeys between the North West and East Midlands. It would also alleviate the freight situation.

And then:

[separating out traffic flows] between the East Midlands and the North West. With the Bakewell line a passenger express can avoid the Hope valley freight as an example. At present they all have to follow along the same route.

 

[Killingworth]

Living very near to the Dore triangle of junctions I'm very aware that the most critical point is currently Dore West and that's where most benefit will come after completion of the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme.

There's a misconception that all trains run south towards Chesterfield. They don't, although many are routed through Sheffield to get to Barrow Hill.

I've taken a random RTT listing of all freight trains across that junction last Wednesday, a fairly typical day, see; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...3-31/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=freight&order=wtt

The low number of freight paths actually used is the first thing that may strike some. Many are apparently duplicated. That's because the paths along the Hope Valley to and from the quarries and cement works spread out around the country so a variety of destination options have to be planned in.

However, detailed examination over a long period would reveal that a significant number of these paths are never, or very rarely, used. There does not appear to be a shortage of freight paths now going east, let alone after the scheme works have been completed.

Planned freight paths going west through Chinley show an even greater number of unused paths, see; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...3-31/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=freight&order=wtt

On that evidence can we justify building a new line?

At present output of limestone is increasing. As the years go by I strongly suspect there'll be increasing environmental objections to further extraction licences. There will be a limit as to how much of the Peak District can be exported around the country before there are too few peaks left to be acceptably mined. I say that as one brought up in South East Northumberland where I'd not have believed that coal extraction would have stopped in my lifetime.

There's concern about cycle traffic between Matlock, Bakewell and Buxton. Anyone using the A6 will not be the same sort of cyclist normally using the Monsal Trail. The nature of the A6 is such that cycle traffic is very light, usually only ridden by the strongest long range cyclists due to the gradients, narrowness in parts and twisting nature of the road. The almost level Monsal Trail is ridden by leisure cyclists of all ages requiring no gears with cycles available for hire at Hassop station and Blackwell Mill.

 

[A0]

"What part of capacity in Manchestet don't you understand"

"You mentioned extending the Hazel Grove service"

You demand answers to the various scenarios that you throw out, to distract from your lack of an argument then when someone answers them you have a petulant hissy fit and accuse them of "moving the goalposts".

Brilliant - so one second I'm "talking out of the side of your hat." and the next I'm having "a petulant hissy fit" - yet it was you who has ignored the fact that others keep pointing out capacity is something you have to look at for an end to end journey, not just the bit you want to, particularly if you're looking to add services (which you are). And the fact I pointed out the inconsistency of your position from one moment to the next when you suggested 'extending' the Hazel Grove terminators onto the Hope Valley despite the fact you already bemoan the Manchester commuter services "getting in the way" of your fast train across the Hope Valley which you're about to make worse and slow down journeys from the Hope Valley.

That's before I point out for the umpteenth time that you *still haven't* addressed the points I previously made such was your obsession with hurling invective at me and shifting the goalposts.

If there's that much demand for travel from Leicester to Manchester or Derby to Manchester, then let's see the evidence for it and let's see what *other* options exist which could be done using existing infrastructure at lower cost. Of course you won't agree to this because (i) it doesn't build more lines (ii) you don't have any such evidence (iii) you'll have shifted the goalposts again to saying it isn't about connectivity between Manchester and the East Mids now, it's probably something to do with an ancient desire to rebuild the Midland Railway in its entirety.

 

[Greybeard33]

You quote this theoretical perfect timing of 1 hour twenty via Sheffield if only we could time a shorter connection. Not withstanding the difficulties and risk to journeys of tighter connection times, what is the likelihood of the entire flow of traffic around Sheffield being rearranged to enable this tight connection ? I would suggest very slim.

As a sanity check regarding journey times, the Disused Stations website has an extract from a 1922 Bradshaw timetable for the Peak line.

An express took 1h25 from Manchester Central to Derby Midland non-stop, or 1h30 with one stop at Millers Dale. A stopper took up to 2h50, depending on how many stations it skipped. The Midland route from Central via Cheadle Heath to Chinley was a bit longer than today's routes from Piccadilly, but less congested.

There were few direct trains from Buxton to Matlock. The Buxton branch was mainly served by a shuttle from Millers Dale. Buxton to Matlock journey time was 1h on a direct train, 1h5 changing at Millers Dale.

Living very near to the Dore triangle of junctions I'm very aware that the most critical point is currently Dore West and that's where most benefit will come after completion of the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme.

There's a misconception that all trains run south towards Chesterfield. They don't, although many are routed through Sheffield to get to Barrow Hill.

I've taken a random RTT listing of all freight trains across that junction last Wednesday, a fairly typical day, see; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...3-31/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=freight&order=wtt

The low number of freight paths actually used is the first thing that may strike some. Many are apparently duplicated. That's because the paths along the Hope Valley to and from the quarries and cement works spread out around the country so a variety of destination options have to be planned in.

However, detailed examination over a long period would reveal that a significant number of these paths are never, or very rarely, used. There does not appear to be a shortage of freight paths now going east, let alone after the scheme works have been completed.

Planned freight paths going west through Chinley show an even greater number of unused paths, see; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...3-31/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=freight&order=wtt

On that evidence can we justify building a new line?

At present output of limestone is increasing. As the years go by I strongly suspect there'll be increasing environmental objections to further extraction licences. There will be a limit as to how much of the Peak District can be exported around the country before there are too few peaks left to be acceptably mined. I say that as one brought up in South East Northumberland where I'd not have believed that coal extraction would have stopped in my lifetime.

There's concern about cycle traffic between Matlock, Bakewell and Buxton. Anyone using the A6 will not be the same sort of cyclist normally using the Monsal Trail. The nature of the A6 is such that cycle traffic is very light, usually only ridden by the strongest long range cyclists due to the gradients, narrowness in parts and twisting nature of the road. The almost level Monsal Trail is ridden by leisure cyclists of all ages requiring no gears with cycles available for hire at Hassop station and Blackwell Mill.

AIUI the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme only provides paths for 3tp2h of freight, the same as today. The additional capacity is for passenger trains.

I think unused freight paths are a bit of a red herring. Freight traffic flows are inevitably variable, because they have to flex to match customer demand. But if there are insufficient paths to meet the peak demand, that flow will be lost to the railway. Each train can carry 2200t of aggregate. If one of the three paths is removed, that can mean up to 80 more heavy lorries needed per 2 hour cycle, or a lorry every 90 seconds on the A6 or A623!

The capacity crunch might come in the 2030s, with NPR wanting a 4th hourly fast service through the Hope Valley, on top of the 3tph provided by the Capacity Scheme, and HS2 wanting paths for 2tph through Chesterfield and the Sheaf Valley, in addition to the services from Nottingham and Derby.

 

[A0]

As a sanity check regarding journey times, the Disused Stations website has an extract from a 1922 Bradshaw timetable for the Peak line.

An express took 1h25 from Manchester Central to Derby Midland non-stop, or 1h30 with one stop at Millers Dale. A stopper took up to 2h50, depending on how many stations it skipped. The Midland route from Central via Cheadle Heath to Chinley was a bit longer than today's routes from Piccadilly, but less congested.

There were few direct trains from Buxton to Matlock. The Buxton branch was mainly served by a shuttle from Millers Dale. Buxton to Matlock journey time was 1h on a direct train, 1h5 changing at Millers Dale.

AIUI the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme only provides paths for 3tp2h of freight, the same as today. The additional capacity is for passenger trains.

I think unused freight paths are a bit of a red herring. Freight traffic flows are inevitably variable, because they have to flex to match customer demand. But if there are insufficient paths to meet the peak demand, that flow will be lost to the railway. Each train can carry 2200t of aggregate. If one of the three paths is removed, that can mean up to 80 more heavy lorries needed per 2 hour cycle, or a lorry every 90 seconds on the A6 or A623!

BIB - the flaw in your argument is twofold - firstly that *all* trains run at their maximum load and secondly if there wasn't a train the full load would go by road in one shipment - which in reality is unlikely to happen.

 

[furnessvale]

BIB - the flaw in your argument is twofold - firstly that *all* trains run at their maximum load and secondly if there wasn't a train the full load would go by road in one shipment - which in reality is unlikely to happen.

Bulk loads by rail inevitably run at capacity loadings. There is no profit in running part loads.

If a train is removed every two hours, it will go by road in separate shipments which will require an HGV every 90 seconds to match the train.

 

[Killingworth]

AIUI the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme only provides paths for 3tp2h of freight, the same as today. The additional capacity is for passenger trains.

I think unused freight paths are a bit of a red herring. Freight traffic flows are inevitably variable, because they have to flex to match customer demand. But if there are insufficient paths to meet the peak demand, that flow will be lost to the railway. Each train can carry 2200t of aggregate. If one of the three paths is removed, that can mean up to 80 more heavy lorries needed per 2 hour cycle, or a lorry every 90 seconds on the A6 or A623!

The capacity crunch might come in the 2030s, with NPR wanting a 4th hourly fast service through the Hope Valley, on top of the 3tph provided by the Capacity Scheme, and HS2 wanting paths for 2tph through Chesterfield and the Sheaf Valley, in addition to the services from Nottingham and Derby.

The original specification was to provide 4 fast and one slow passenger path per hour but due to capacity constraints at both Sheffield and more particularly Manchester that was reduced to 3 fast and one slow plus freight as now.

We should remember that this scheme has been in planning a very long time. Network Rail were talking to Sheffield City Planners about Dore platforms in 2005. At Grip 2 in 2012 bi-directional signalling through the station still seems to have been included. The third loop at Chinley and requirement for 4 fast services were dropped between the first round of public consultations in 2013 and the 2nd and 3rd (which changed the Grindleford loop for the one at Bamford) in 2015.

Over this period passenger loadings were growing much faster than the forecasts in Network Rail's business case. So too was freight! However, longer passenger and freight trains were dealing with that. i don't see passenger traffic recovering inside 10, maybe not 20, years.

Come 2023/4 nobody yet knows what traffic will be like. If it stays as now the present passenger provision will be more than adequate. To fit with slower moving freight the slow service to New Mills might be extended to Sheffield with limited stops! However longer freights should be able to progress just a little bit more easily once the loops become available, and with the improved signalling.

To consider building new lines before this scheme has been tested in practice, after the pandemic, is very optimistic. I repeat - a relatively small project, first public knowledge 2005, completion not due until 2023 - has taken at least 18 years!! And the amount of opposition was modest, mostly from one man who seems to have left the scene. So little that the Dore part didn't really need a public inquiry.