Help Save the Monsal Trail!

rareposter
Posts: 1964
Joined: 27 Aug 2014, 2:40pm

Re: Help Save the Monsal Trail!

Post by rareposter »

Latest news:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/m ... ns-6159272

Extract, if you can't be bothered to open the link and deal with cookies is:

Plans to reinstate the Peak and Dales line along the Monsal Trail have been ruled on by the Department of Transport.

After the closure of the line in 1968, nearly nine miles of the now abandoned railway was transformed into the popular trail, incorporating railway tunnels as well as the Monsal Viaduct.

As part of its Levelling-Up agenda, in January 2020, the Government pledged £500 million for the Restoring Your Railway programme to start reopening lines and stations.

The popular, highly competitive initiative saw 85 proposals submitted in the third round, of which just 13 have been approved for funding.

The Manchester and East Midlands Rail Action Partnership (MEMRAP) believed the railway would "reconnect isolated communities between Matlock and Buxton/Chinley and reconnect Manchester with the East Midlands, to and through the Peak District National Park".

But the Department has ruled against handing funds to the reopening push.

Stephen Chaytow CEO of MEMRAP said: "“Whilst we are naturally disappointed not to have secured the funding we were seeking through ‘Restoring Your Railway’, we continue to pursue other, existing avenues via the appropriate agencies.


There's some more stuff in there too but that's the main thrust of it. It doesn't completely kill off plans to reopen the line but it does make it significantly more difficult.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Help Save the Monsal Trail!

Post by mjr »

rareposter wrote: 10 Oct 2021, 10:19pm Putting a cycle route alongside a railway at the point it's built is generally very easy indeed - you already have the "road" there for construction traffic access so all it requires is some tarmac.

Trying to retrofit it to an existing railway line where you have fences, farmland, vegetation, tunnels, cuttings etc is a nightmare.
Not always because many sections have a "road" there for maintenance traffic access so all it requires is some tarmac (or woodcrete or whatever is current preference).

There are sections of NCN33 alongside the Bristol to Exeter line. I think it's under Flowerdown Bridge that it doubles as seldom-used maintenance access. Between Backwell Bow(?) and Flax Bourton it runs along the top of the cutting bank, linking some former bridleways and paths.
At one point in the early days of HS2, there was a plan to have cycle paths alongside a lot of it and the economic case for it was off the scale. The additional cost was nothing in the grand scheme of things although there was the slight issue that councils would then have to build connecting routes into towns/cities etc along the way so (in its initial phase) it didn't really connect to much, you'd have had to link it up afterwards.
It need not have all been councils because the HS2 route crosses or cannons a lot of National Highways roads (A40, M25, A404, A43, A46, A45, M42, M6, A5 and A38 among others), so national government could have built some of the connecting cycleways.
Naturally, that got binned off more or less immediately.

Cost saving... :roll:
Yeah, false economy and reducing the benefit-cost ratio in one simple move. For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong...
lbomaak2 wrote: 14 Oct 2021, 12:28pm A plan has been prepared to "re-provision" the Monsal trail if the existing route is ever returned to railway use; I don't know the details, but it would avoid those boring stretches through the tunnels.
Without the flattish route through tunnels, I suspect it would involve some exciting climbs and challenging surfaces, or a long detour, similar to what has to be done at present to get around one closed tunnel, if I remember correctly.
The railway would make a major reduction in costs and CO2 emissions for the quarry companies, if they could transport their stuff directly southward (all downhill), instead of their heavy trains having to grind their way up via the Hope Valley line.
Would it repay the cost and CO2 emissions needed to enlarge the tunnels before the quarries are used up? Is the indirect route a serious problem for something as non-perishable as stone?
For passengers, it's not just journeys from Buxton to Matlock, but connecting Buxton area with Derby, Matlock to Manchester and beyond, etc. Derby to Manchester via Sheffield (or Stoke) is slow! And if more visitors to the Peak District could come by rail, it would take some cars off the roads.
You can't have it both ways: it'll only be at most a twin-track railway, so passenger journeys will be slow at near freight speeds. It may even be a single-track in places to deal with some of the loading gauge problems, which will mean choosing between freight and passengers at certain times of day.

I read elsewhere that there is almost no chance of reopening because the economics do not stack up. Even with a possible higher carbon tax in future, the extra freight and tourist traffic would not come close to the cost of building and the lost tourist cycling/walking spending.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
lbomaak2
Posts: 107
Joined: 3 Aug 2009, 12:38pm
Location: Loughborough

Re: Help Save the Monsal Trail!

Post by lbomaak2 »

mjr wrote: 8 Nov 2021, 5:50pm
lbomaak2 wrote: 14 Oct 2021, 12:28pm A plan has been prepared to "re-provision" the Monsal trail if the existing route is ever returned to railway use; I don't know the details, but it would avoid those boring stretches through the tunnels.
Without the flattish route through tunnels, I suspect it would involve some exciting climbs and challenging surfaces, or a long detour, similar to what has to be done at present to get around one closed tunnel, if I remember correctly.
I haven't seen the re-provisioning plans, but I suspect they would involve detours following the valley rather than "exciting climbs". There would need to be some engineering to convert existing footpaths for cycle use, which might not be welcomed by all walkers.
The railway would make a major reduction in costs and CO2 emissions for the quarry companies, if they could transport their stuff directly southward (all downhill), instead of their heavy trains having to grind their way up via the Hope Valley line.
Would it repay the cost and CO2 emissions needed to enlarge the tunnels before the quarries are used up? Is the indirect route a serious problem for something as non-perishable as stone?
I have to admit that I am wondering how the time-scale for exhausting the quarries compares with the time to get the railway rebuilt. But the quarry company apparently reckons that it would be worthwhile.
For passengers, it's not just journeys from Buxton to Matlock, but connecting Buxton area with Derby, Matlock to Manchester and beyond, etc. Derby to Manchester via Sheffield (or Stoke) is slow! And if more visitors to the Peak District could come by rail, it would take some cars off the roads.
You can't have it both ways: it'll only be at most a twin-track railway, so passenger journeys will be slow at near freight speeds. It may even be a single-track in places to deal with some of the loading gauge problems, which will mean choosing between freight and passengers at certain times of day.
You could say the same about the Hope Valley line, which currently carries much of the quarry traffic, and is two-track apart from a passing loop near Hope; and passenger services on that line operate well.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Help Save the Monsal Trail!

Post by mjr »

lbomaak2 wrote: 10 Nov 2021, 11:35am You could say the same about the Hope Valley line, which currently carries much of the quarry traffic, and is two-track apart from a passing loop near Hope; and passenger services on that line operate well.
Not entirely because the Hope Valley line is open, already planned to expand (more loops and maybe lines) and connects larger cities. Then there's Northern Powerhouse Rail which will build another transpennine line eventually.

The Monsal route is worth more as a transpennine cycle route than yet another substandard rail route. Efforts should be directed into completing its links to Derby and Stockport instead of trashing it.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
PH
Posts: 13099
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Help Save the Monsal Trail!

Post by PH »

It's getting a bit of national coverage:
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2021 ... al-opinion

I'm a bit surprised, seems a lot of fuss about something that isn't going to happen.
BREL
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Jan 2019, 8:16am
Location: Stone Staffs

Re: Help Save the Monsal Trail!

Post by BREL »

I'm between a rock and a hard place as the Yanks would say, because I like cycling and I like trains, if the powers that be could convert it back to a railway that is great but make it single track line, but if they left it alone as a cycle and hiking route that is great too
Carrera Vengeance 18" frame 27.5" wheels
rareposter
Posts: 1964
Joined: 27 Aug 2014, 2:40pm

Re: Help Save the Monsal Trail!

Post by rareposter »

drossall
Posts: 6106
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Help Save the Monsal Trail!

Post by drossall »

I remember visiting Peak Rail when they had facilities at Buxton. Theoretically, I think, they maintain an interest in reopening the whole length, but they've been around for 50 years already.
Post Reply