Restoration of the Peak Line

[Bald Rick]

I am perfectly aware of what the planning objections would be and how difficult they would be to overcome,

The planning issue would be a big one. To get a railway built and in operation - even a privately funded one - would need an extensive planning process. It’s reasonable to assume that the local poplace would want some benefit from the disruption caused by the construction of the railway, almost certainly in the form of a passenger service. Ie, to overcome the planning issues, you’d need to build a passenger railway.

 

[Nottingham59]

Something that could make it cheaper though is if it is for freight use rather than for passenger use (easier signalling and lower speeds) as well as the alignment being still intact (beyond a bridge in Rowsley)

Even cheaper would be for the quarry companies to pay for the existing line to be kept open overnight. I reckon they could get 12 trains an hour out of Chinley after the last passenger service, heading east or west depending on the NR maintenance schedule.

Though there may not be that much demand. For the whole 24 hours of yesterday, there was only one single train through Chinley South Junction (6Z45 Trowse to Tunstead sidings). Is that usual?

 

[MarkyT]

Something that could make it cheaper though is if it is for freight use rather than for passenger use (easier signalling and lower speeds) as well as the alignment being still intact (beyond a bridge in Rowsley)

There's no significant difference in the signalling cost today as 'passenger standards' have been used on new and resignalled freight lines for decades. Overlaps and facing point locks are now incorporated by default. Some statutory trapping of sidings with respect to a main running line might plausibly be omitted in an all-freight scenario perhaps.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's no significant difference in the signalling cost today as 'passenger standards' have been used on new and resignalled freight lines for decades. Overlaps and facing point locks are now incorporated by default. Some statutory trapping of sidings with respect to a main running line might plausibly be omitted in an all-freight scenario perhaps.

True, but for a line handling a handful of freights a say, the number of sections could be much reduced, and that makes it more simple.

 

[Bunglejim]

Though there may not be that much demand. For the whole 24 hours of yesterday, there was only one single train through Chinley South Junction (6Z45 Trowse to Tunstead sidings). Is that usual?

Depends on the routing, it can also be better staff wise for southbound traffic to run via Crewe.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Even cheaper would be for the quarry companies to pay for the existing line to be kept open overnight. I reckon they could get 12 trains an hour out of Chinley after the last passenger service, heading east or west depending on the NR maintenance schedule.

Though there may not be that much demand. For the whole 24 hours of yesterday, there was only one single train through Chinley South Junction (6Z45 Trowse to Tunstead sidings). Is that usual?

Not always a regular reporting point. My check on RTT showed 44 'trains' on 28 June at Peak Forest (some might be light locomotives but they all need paths). These were actual runners, not Q paths or cancellations.

With Hillhead Quarry rail terminal now re-opened it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Peak Forest-Chiney South could be the 'busiest' freight corridor on Network Rail in a few years. (Stone trains are generally heavier than intermodals and the Buxton area quarries could exceed the Mendips as the only obvious rival.)

 

[MarkyT]

True, but for a line handling a handful of freights a say, the number of sections could be much reduced, and that makes it more simple.

Agreed, but as you said earlier to get through planning in such a sensitive area you'd likely have to include at least some passenger service provision to placate locals, so that'd mean catering for mixed operations probably with more block sections. Unlikely a single-section long siding would be suitable using one train working with or without train staff, like some freight only-lines.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can someone with knowledge of these large tonnage stone trains say if the noise of these passing through populated areas, small or large, at night regular services would cause problems with residents of those areas.

 

[Nottingham59]

Not always a regular reporting point. My check on RTT showed 44 'trains' on 28 June at Peak Forest (some might be light locomotives but they all need paths). These were actual runners, not Q paths or cancellations.

With Hillhead Quarry rail terminal now re-opened it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Peak Forest-Chiney South could be the 'busiest' freight corridor on Network Rail in a few years. (Stone trains are generally heavier than intermodals and the Buxton area quarries could exceed the Mendips as the only obvious rival.)

Ah. That makes more sense. Thank you.
So an average of one quarry movement per hour in each direction passing Peak Forest Signal Box.

 

[The Planner]

Can someone with knowledge of these large tonnage stone trains say if the noise of these passing through populated areas, small or large, at night regular services would cause problems with residents of those areas.

Clearly any noise would cause problems if someone didn't like it.

 

[zwk500]

Can someone with knowledge of these large tonnage stone trains say if the noise of these passing through populated areas, small or large, at night regular services would cause problems with residents of those areas.

Whatever the residents can use to object will be held up against the railway. NIMBYs don't feel good about themselves unless they're stopping the country having nice things.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whatever the residents can use to object will be held up against the railway. NIMBYs don't feel good about themselves unless they're stopping the country having nice things.

I do admire your definition of "large tonnage stone trains" as being "nice things"...

 

[yorksrob]

I do admire your definition of "large tonnage stone trains" as being "nice things"...

They are very much nice things, in comparison to lots of heavy lorries.

 

[zwk500]

I do admire your definition of "large tonnage stone trains" as being "nice things"...

A freight railway is a nice thing for the country because it assists the economy.
I have other reasons why I don't support this specific proposal, but in general the UK is in thrall to the NIMBY-BANANA complex and something needs to be done regarding the planning system if we are to avoid falling even further behind Europe and the US.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A freight railway is a nice thing for the country because it assists the economy.
I have other reasons why I don't support this specific proposal, but in general the UK is in thrall to the NIMBY-BANANA complex and something needs to be done regarding the planning system if we are to avoid falling even further behind Europe and the US.

I note your comments above and ask who it will be the body "that does something regarding the planning system" as there have been governments of the red and the blue persuasion in office since the end of WWII (which ended the year that I was born) and the situation concerning planning is still what the country has in 2023.

 

[A0]

Whatever the residents can use to object will be held up against the railway. NIMBYs don't feel good about themselves unless they're stopping the country having nice things.

Bit in bold - I think that's a bit unfair - particularly in the countryside where people have moved somewhere for some peace and quiet at the time of moving there no development and certainly nothing like a railway line was planned - and now they're going to see their community and their environment disrupted and possibly destroyed. Living in Northants I feel quite strongly about this - in the west of the county HS2 is chewing up swathes of the countryside, yet Northants isn't going to benefit from this at all.

It's a bit different if there's then an asset which the locals might see some benefit of - but in their case they get nothing but the disruption now and the ongoing noise and blight forevermore.

Funnily enough, those who blocked road schemes in London in the 70s and 80s are never considered NIMBY's in quite the same way - yet they ought to be.

 

[The Planner]

Funnily enough, those who blocked road schemes in London in the 70s and 80s are never considered NIMBY's in quite the same way - yet they ought to be.

Yes, but how many of those London plans didn't involve demolishing swathes of housing though? This isn't Ringway 1.

 

[Bartsimho]

Yes, but how many of those London plans didn't involve demolishing swathes of housing though? This isn't Ringway 1.

What's the difference between housing and the environment?

 

[Bald Rick]

What's the difference between housing and the environment?

The environment doesn’t vote. Occupants of houses do.

 

[Bartsimho]

The environment doesn’t vote. Occupants of houses do.

But occupants of houses can vote to keep the current environment around

 

[Bald Rick]

But occupants of houses can vote to keep the current environment around

Yes, of course, but a lot more people care about keeping their house than the environment.

 

[A0]

Yes, but how many of those London plans didn't involve demolishing swathes of housing though? This isn't Ringway 1.

What's the difference between housing and the environment?

But occupants of houses can vote to keep the current environment around

Yes, of course, but a lot more people care about keeping their house than the environment.

But the acronym "NIMBY" is "not in my back yard" i.e. opposing development which has a negative impact on the person in question - that doesn't just mean demolishing their house, though it is worth pointing out that HS2 is demolishing houses in various places on its route - or is it because they are nice houses in the countryside it's OK ?

 

[The Planner]

But the acronym "NIMBY" is "not in my back yard" i.e. opposing development which has a negative impact on the person in question - that doesn't just mean demolishing their house, though it is worth pointing out that HS2 is demolishing houses in various places on its route - or is it because they are nice houses in the countryside it's OK ?

Is HS2 demolishing at the same level as your example of the Ringways?

 

[A0]

Is HS2 demolishing at the same level as your example of the Ringways?

I don't think that's relevant. If you come back on topic of the Matlock - Buxton line, there would be virtually no residential demolition, so does that mean the "NIMBY's" don't have a point ?

 

[The Planner]

I don't think that's relevant. If you come back on topic of the Matlock - Buxton line, there would be virtually no residential demolition, so does that mean the "NIMBY's" don't have a point ?

I was responding to your point on people in London rejecting road schemes.

 

[A0]

I was responding to your point on people in London rejecting road schemes.

The point stands regardless - either you think it's OK for NIMBY's to get their way or it isn't - it seems that there is a bit of an inconsistency i.e. if it's a road scheme running through a big city it's OK, whereas if it's some slightly better off people living in the countryside, it isn't - is that correct ?

 

[Nottingham59]

If the quarry companies decided they were willing to fund a cheap as possible line to Matlock themselves

It seems to me that the most cost-effective intervention to increase capacity for quarry trains in the South Pennines would be to reinstate the four tracks that used to run from Chinley North junction to New Mills. With two tracks to Marple via New Mills Central, and two tracks to Hazel Grove via the Disley Tunnel, this gives a four track railway all the way from the quarries out to the west. And it is West of the Pennines that additional freight capacity will be unlocked when and if HS2 ever gets to Manchester.

This extract from openrailwaymap that show the 3.5 mile route section.


Even reinstating a single track would completely segregate the Hope Valley slows from quarry trains to and from Hazel Grove, and act as a passing loop for TPE fast services to overtake quarry traffic and stopping passenger services at Chinley station.

This intervention would be cheaper and much less controversial than reinstating the line to Matlock.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, but how many of those London plans didn't involve demolishing swathes of housing though? This isn't Ringway 1.

Where???

 

[snowball]

Where???

The once-proposed motorway in London, not the airport.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It seems to me that the most cost-effective intervention to increase capacity for quarry trains in the South Pennines would be to reinstate the four tracks that used to run from Chinley North junction to New Mills. With two tracks to Marple via New Mills Central, and two tracks to Hazel Grove via the Disley Tunnel, this gives a four track railway all the way from the quarries out to the west. And it is West of the Pennines that additional freight capacity will be unlocked when and if HS2 ever gets to Manchester.

This extract from openrailwaymap that show the 3.5 mile route section. [Deleted.]


Even reinstating a single track would completely segregate the Hope Valley slows from quarry trains to and from Hazel Grove, and act as a passing loop for TPE fast services to overtake quarry traffic and stopping passenger services at Chinley station.

This intervention would be cheaper and much less controversial than reinstating the line to Matlock.

There have been various suggestions for a 'third line' around New Mills South Jn-Chinley. This might serve a number of purposes, such as allowing New Mills Central terminators to extend to Chinley; enabling returning empty stone trains to be held between Eastbound and Westbound tracks before Chinley North Junction; or allowing Chinley to be used as a more effective turning point in either direction in cases of engineering work on either side.

It is worth noting that the original quadrupling only took place in 1929 to facilitate greater use of Gowholes Yard as a freight staging point or for attaching banking locomotives for heavier trains towards Millers Dale. Neither of these functions is really relevant today.