Peaks and Dales line - feasibility study submitted

[BankQuayLowLvl]

Couldn't find an active thread on this & unsure if it fits into Speculative (but given the light amount of information available, it probably does)

"A feasibility study into the proposed reopening of the Peaks and Dales Line between Manchester and Derby has been submitted for review to the Department for Transport (DfT).

The study has been submitted to the DfT via the Better Value Rail Working Group, which consists of the DfT, Network Rail, and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). By submitting the feasibility study, it confirms that there are no prohibitive technical, environmental, planning or delivery barriers to prevent producing a Strategic Outline Business Case." - RailAdvent

And a new project page:

peaksanddalesline.co.uk - Reconnecting Communities - Lifting Lives

A study examining solutions to the unsustainable traffic problems along the Peaks and Dales Line corridor.

peaksanddalesline.co.uk

What are the chances of this getting anywhere? And what services would you run over it if built?

 

[321362]

Piccadilly is an issue if you wanted extra services, it would either have to be the existing 1tph Picc-Buxton extended downwards to merge with some Matlock services, or freeing up some capacity at Piccadilly by other means (NPR anyone?).

The alternative is turning things at Stockport but that isn't ideal and also might be constrained

 

[stevieinselby]

How many times over could we have built HS2 by now, with the money we would have saved if we didn't spend a fortune on consultants rehashing these vampire routes every few years?

 

[Zomboid]

What are the chances of this getting anywhere?

Zero might be a bit stark, but it's not measurably higher.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Zero might be a bit stark, but it's not measurably higher.

It might even be actively negative. The Monsal Trail benefits a huge number of people compared to a DMU once an hour. It is an active travel corridor and an important leisure route. You could do it single track and retain access I suppose, but still.

If there is a desire for a Manchester-East Midlands service it has been done before via existing routes and could be again, i.e. turning right at Dore South Curve.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Can anyone flesh out what this mysterious Better Value Working Group is, remit, funding, etc.?
If ‘the Government’ is looking for better value from our expensive railway system the wheeze of reversing a Wilson/Castle closure nearly six decades ago seems an odd place to start.

 

[The exile]

Can anyone flesh out what this mysterious Better Value Working Group is, remit, funding, etc.?
If ‘the Government’ is looking for better value from our expensive railway system the wheeze of reversing a Wilson/Castle closure nearly six decades ago seems an odd place to start.

Unless the object is to knock recurring ideas on the head.

 

[TheWierdOne]

It might even be actively negative. The Monsal Trail benefits a huge number of people compared to a DMU once an hour. It is an active travel corridor and an important leisure route. You could do it single track and retain access I suppose, but still.

This would seem to be a sensible compromise. A railway line alongside the active travel route will if anything create greater attraction to the route for the enthusiasts among the population, and will hardly reduce attraction for others. A single track between Matlock and Buxton would be plenty to permit an hourly service each way, and half hourly in (the long term) future if you put a loop at Bakewell.

What is the freight potential of this route? Could it be used to relieve pressure on the existing trans pennine corridors, although I’m aware that it does nothing to alleviate bottlenecks in and around Manchester.

 

[quantinghome]

This would seem to be a sensible compromise. A railway line alongside the active travel route will if anything create greater attraction to the route for the enthusiasts among the population, and will hardly reduce attraction for others. A single track between Matlock and Buxton would be plenty to permit an hourly service each way, and half hourly in (the long term) future if you put a loop at Bakewell.

Yes, the tunnels would become a particularly exhilarating experience!

 

[Zomboid]

I haven't done the monsal trail, but I have done the Barnstaple to Torrington one, and if you were to add a full size railway in parallel with the path and a regular service of full size trains passing at 50mph, that would utterly wreck it.

A miniature Bure Valley style thing would be ok, or even an Avon Valley style heritage operation - but if you put a main line railway along there you might as well forget about the active/leisure route.

 

[TheWierdOne]

I haven't done the monsal trail, but I have done the Barnstaple to Torrington one, and if you were to add a full size railway in parallel with the path and a regular service of full size trains passing at 50mph, that would utterly wreck it.

A miniature Bure Valley style thing would be ok, or even an Avon Valley style heritage operation - but if you put a main line railway along there you might as well forget about the active/leisure route.

How exactly would one or two trains per hour “wreck” an active travel route?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How exactly would one or two trains per hour “wreck” an active travel route?

If we were talking about a couple of 2 car DMUs an hour then you would probably get something similar in feel to the Cambridgeshire busway. But is there any point in reopening it for that? Integrated bus services might be better value.

I expect the tunnels (which are a nice curiosity) would close to pedestrians and cyclists in that case too, they'd have to go over the top.

 

[Zomboid]

How exactly would one or two trains per hour “wreck” an active travel route?

What was enjoyable about riding a bike along the tarka trail was the lack of traffic beyond other people doing the same kind of thing, the clear views of the scenery, the rural idyllic nature of the activity.

Stick a railway line there with all the attendant infrastructure (it'll need a substantial fence to start with which will spoil the view somewhat), and then have a few hundred tons of metal rumbling past every so often and you've lost a lot of what made the activity enjoyable.

People don't walk/ ride on these trails to get from place to place, they do it for the views and the atmosphere.

You wouldn't want to walk along the cess of the WCML through the lake district, would you?

 

[Dr Hoo]

How exactly would one or two trains per hour “wreck” an active travel route?

Have you ever used the Monsal Trail? Are you aware that it passes through six tunnels and accommodates walkers, cyclists, wheelchair/ mobility scooter users and equestrians, in both directions obviously.
Have you seen a detailed specification of the service proposition, e.g. an absolute bar on freight? Not everyone wants to be pressed up against a fence, next to a nervous horse as a 2,400-tonne freight blasts past through a tunnel at 60mph.

 

[The exile]

How exactly would one or two trains per hour “wreck” an active travel route?

There’s a difference between an “active travel route” as in “a route people use to get into town (or wherever) by their own steam” where sharing it with a train might not be a problem and a leisure route which people are principally using for the sake of being on it out in the countryside.

 

[stevieinselby]

How exactly would one or two trains per hour “wreck” an active travel route?

The route was originally built as a 2-track railway, and has now been converted to a leisure route with a loose surfaced width of about 2.5m and a green verge on either side. Much of it runs through cuttings and/or embankments, as well as several tunnels and viaducts, all of which provide a hard limit on the available width without colossal civil engineering work.

To take out enough of the width to accommodate a single track railway line with clearance space and the inevitably necessary 2m high palisade fencing, you're left with only a narrow strip for the remaining leisure use, and walkers and cyclists are going to be pretty much rubbing shoulders with the palisade fencing when passing each other. Even if you cleared the formation back to its original width when it was a 2-track railway, you're still significantly reducing the space available for leisure users, you've taken out the soft edge of the verge, and you've put up ugly metal fencing alongside the entire route, so it's going to feel more like you're taking the access road into an industrial estate than enjoying the bucolic English countryside.

And that's before you put a single train on the tracks. Then you've got the noise and vibration of trains coming past at close quarters. It would probably make the route unusable for horse riders as a result, and would be distinctly less pleasant for walkers and cyclists. Trains would need to be battery or electric, because diesel fumes in the tunnels would be suffocating to leisure users. Would the loose surface be susceptible to air currents caused by trains passing at speed, creating a mini dust storm every time a train went past?

This is a pretty typical section of the route: https://maps.app.goo.gl/r7155QR9RWimWhmL9

 

[BankQuayLowLvl]

I agree with @stevieinselby 's assessment - there is no way you could run Monsal trail along the existing route and run a train service without severly compromising what makes the route attractive in the first place. The tunnels are what make it special, and they would be impossible to navigate.

On the other hand - restoring the railway is clearly a better use of a former trackbed than a nice path (and having ridden on it twice, it is very nice) that people almost exclusively drive to use. That is, IF the restored railway is useful and a good use of resources.

 

[Zomboid]

the other hand - restoring the railway is clearly a better use of a former trackbed than a nice path (and having ridden on it twice, it is very nice) that people almost exclusively drive to use. That is, IF the restored railway is useful and a good use of resources

I suppose the point is that the route can only be one thing - an active railway or a tourist attraction. It can't be both. If it is assessed that the benefit of reinstating the railway is greater than the negative effect of removing the attraction then so be it, but I suspect the equation will come out that it's better left as it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the other hand - restoring the railway is clearly a better use of a former trackbed than a nice path (and having ridden on it twice, it is very nice) that people almost exclusively drive to use. That is, IF the restored railway is useful and a good use of resources.

That's a very big if in this case. I think it could easily be argued that this railway would be less use than the path presently is. That isn't true of all such paths, though.

 

[stevieinselby]

On the other hand - restoring the railway is clearly a better use of a former trackbed than a nice path (and having ridden on it twice, it is very nice) that people almost exclusively drive to use. That is, IF the restored railway is useful and a good use of resources.

(My emphasis)
Is it clear, though? For strategic purposes, it would add direct Derby to Manchester trains (currently about 2 journeys per hour with one change, via either Stoke or Hope Valley), but that's all – and even then, there's a good chance that the new route would be little or no quicker than the current options if it was acting as the local service along the route. Sure, it would add a rail service to Bakewell and a handful of smaller villages, and would improve rail connectivity from Matlock and Buxton – but at the expense of one of the bigger draws to an area that relies heavily on tourism. I'm really not convinced that rebuilding the railway would add much to the network compared with far less work needed to upgrade the Hope Valley line to provide the extra capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

(My emphasis)
Is it clear, though? For strategic purposes, it would add direct Derby to Manchester trains (currently about 2 journeys per hour with one change, via either Stoke or Hope Valley), but that's all – and even then, there's a good chance that the new route would be little or no quicker than the current options if it was acting as the local service along the route. Sure, it would add a rail service to Bakewell and a handful of smaller villages, and would improve rail connectivity from Matlock and Buxton – but at the expense of one of the bigger draws to an area that relies heavily on tourism. I'm really not convinced that rebuilding the railway would add much to the network compared with far less work needed to upgrade the Hope Valley line to provide the extra capacity.

If there is a demand for direct Manchester-Derby trains they could be operated via the Hope Valley, either via Sheffield or not (portion worked with something else if paths are lacking). The only benefits of the railway would be freight capacity and service direct to a few places along the way, but there's largely nothing there and the sort of development that would be needed would be strongly opposed in a national park.

I'm all for useful reopenings, but this isn't really one.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I’m still completely baffled as to why a Better Value Rail Working Group (of the DfT, Network Rail and ORR) have apparently chosen this as their first known project and submitted it to the, err, DfT, to mark their homework.

Are we sure that this isn’t a complete spoof? Is this really one of the Secretary of State’s and GBR’s top priorities?

 

[Farigiraf]

Buxton - Bakewell - Matlock is a fun one that comes up at least once a year. It's one of those lines that really shouldn't have closed, but is not worth the money to reopen either. Manchester to the Midlands is an indirect route that could really do with a better transport link, and the hope valley is more or less at capacity. But good luck getting a railway through the peak district national park AND eliminating a popular walking/cycling trail without facing some opposition!

There's no shortage of nice routes to walk or cycle in the Peak District, so IMO that's not a massive barrier to reopening, but if we're throwing £billions around then I can think of a few dozen routes that should reopen first. Same basket as Borders to Hawick or Skipton to Colne.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Better Value Rail Working Group is where this proposal has been submitted to.

In my opinion this a triumph of PR over reality. Itmust be a slow news week for some railway publications.

I did particualry enjoy a sentence that read something like “now feasibility has been proven….” followed by a later passage which said that an actual route for the line was not confirmed nor proposed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Buxton - Bakewell - Matlock is a fun one that comes up at least once a year. It's one of those lines that really shouldn't have closed, but is not worth the money to reopen either. Manchester to the Midlands is an indirect route that could really do with a better transport link, and the hope valley is more or less at capacity. But good luck getting a railway through the peak district national park AND eliminating a popular walking/cycling trail without facing some opposition!

It kind of feels like the Conwy Valley in a sense (even though that was never a mainline in the same way). I wouldn't really propose closure unless something really expensive (i.e. the tunnel) falls down, but if it had closed and was a cycle/footpath (and I bet it would be a popular one in that form, certainly as far as Betws) I doubt there would be much clamouring for reopening, particularly if the money from subsidising it was spent on a far more frequent bus service up the main road.

 

[Pigeon]

What is the freight potential of this route? Could it be used to relieve pressure on the existing trans pennine corridors, although I'm aware that it does nothing to alleviate bottlenecks in and around Manchester.

Would seem to be a natural route for anything from the Peak Forest or Hindlow quarries to anywhere south of Derby. All downhill in the loaded direction too...

 

[Topological]

IF they finally finish HS2 and take a couple of trains (2 Avanti and 2 CrossCountry per hour) off the Stockport Viaduct, then you do have options south from Manchester.

Signalling on the Hope Valley to allow more trains would be a better use of the spare paths than a whole new line though.

It would be good to see a train use Dore South Curve again. The Project Rio times were brilliant as someone from Leicester who was studying in Manchester at the time. I suspect it would be Nottingham - Chesterfield - Stockport - Manchester though. I do not know if the time penalty for Nottingham - Derby - Chesterfield - Stockport - Manchester would be a too big time penalty.

None of this supports reopening through the peak district. It would be great if they could build the line, but I cannot see the justification.

 

[PMN1]

Bit more about it here.....probably a bit biased.....

Reinstatement — Peaks & Dales Railway

Find out about our proposals to reinstate the Peaks and Dales Railway

www.peaksanddalesrailway.com

 

[Bald Rick]

IF they finally finish HS2 and take a couple of trains (2 Avanti and 2 CrossCountry per hour) off the Stockport Viaduct, then you do have options south from Manchester.

HS2 wouldnt see 2 XC off the Stockport viaduct…

 

[pint]

It wil never happen, its been mooted before and nothing happened.
There is even a campaign to Save the monsall trail

Save Our Monsal Trail

CPRE Peak District and South Yorkshire is working to enhance, promote and protect the countryside. Find out more and get involved.

www.cprepdsy.org.uk

The route itself is an immensely popular cycle track/walking route which fills nearby car parks with people driving into the Peak district from miles around, Manchester, Derby, Leicestershire and beyond to walk and cycle along this route