Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
A train stops in stations miles apart. It stops maybe hourly at best on a fixed timetable. It's not very reliable. (A 4 hrs gap from Sheffield to the Hope Valley yesterday morning after an EMR service was stranded between Edale and Chinley with other services backed up behind causing major disruption across the network and massive inconvenience. On Sunday 1 in 3 hourly stopping services didn't run.) Infrastructure is very expensive to both build and maintain - especially when 100-150 years old in relatively unstable landscape.
A bus is far more flexible on routes and times, can have higher or lower capacity and frequencies and stops at more places than a train. Roads are maintained for all users anyway.
But the car will start the minute the user decides to go be that earlier or later than first planned. It's flexible on routes to a final destination, be it in a formal car park, on a verge or, in Edale, for £5 a day in a farmer's field (it may pay better than the sheep).
I'm afraid the existing trains are not the prefered option for the vast majority. Tourism alone can't make the case for reopening this line, possibly the reverse!
Improving the existing lines at much lower cost, yes. But all trains that are timetabled must run to that timetable a lot better than they're doing at present. Every one that doesn't, no matter what the reason, deters the inconvenienced users and is likely to send them back to cars next time.
Bakewell to Rowsley should be fairly easy. Buxton to Blackwell Mill is rather more dificult. Shared with the freight line it can't be impossible given the long section already shared with Peak Rail from Rowsley into Matlock. Not so attractive though sharing with long aggregate trains.
How can it possibly be cleaner to have to build a new railway through the peak district (with all the construction emissions that entails), to enable, at best, a diesel / battery hybrid train to run… compared to an electric bus service on the existing A6? The latter of which could be started next month, rather than waiting at least a decade.
How can it possibly be cleaner to have to build a new railway through the peak district (with all the construction emissions that entails), to enable, at best, a diesel / battery hybrid train to run… compared to an electric bus service on the existing A6? The latter of which could be started next month, rather than waiting at least a decade.
I have been watching the relatively small Hope Valley work over the last 2-3 years. Up to 450 men at work some days, all coming by road transport from across the country. The contract was for about £135m if I recall right but it must be costing a lot more. Planning started in the late 1990s with many revisions along the way - all adding more costs, many of which have probably been lost in long forgotten budgets.
Those who think this reconstruction project could be completed at any price any time soon are supreme optimists.
I have been watching the relatively small Hope Valley work over the last 2-3 years. Up to 450 men at work some days, all coming by road transport from across the country. The contract was for about £135m if I recall right but it must be costing a lot more. Planning started in the late 1990s with many revisions along the way - all adding more costs, many of which have probably been lost in long forgotten budgets.
Those who think this reconstruction project could be completed at any price any time soon are supreme optimists.
All the projects done by Network Rail, TfL, Transport Scotland, etc have been so expensive because they were completely messed up by the professional planners, engineers, project managers, risk mangers, quantity surveyors etc.
Whereas this proposal for [insert fantasy crayon project here] is going to be so much cheaper because it has been developed by a couple of blokes with a map and a fair knowledge of railways from reading RAIL every fortnght, despite actually being a software engineer / retired dentist / Comic Book store owner / etc.
That's the problem. NR or its successors will want to build a new railway (for which I agree there is no case) with all that that entails, rather than conservatively reinstating in-house, some part of the previous one, to no higher standard than the existing stub, which is what is desired.
That's the problem. NR or its successors will want to build a new railway (for which I agree there is no case) with all that that entails, rather than conservatively reinstating in-house, some part of the previous one, to no higher standard than the existing stub, which is what is desired.
If that's the case why not just seek running rights over Peak Rail to Rowsley then ? 25mph, light rail standard, slightly lower line speed than Ambergate - Matlock, but given the short distance, not enough to make a material difference in journey time given acceleration / braking. Comes a bit unstuck on accessibility standards though.
Either way, north of Rowsley is a pretty big gap over the A6 which would be neither cheap, nor simple to fix.
How can it possibly be cleaner to have to build a new railway through the peak district (with all the construction emissions that entails), to enable, at best, a diesel / battery hybrid train to run… compared to an electric bus service on the existing A6? The latter of which could be started next month, rather than waiting at least a decade.
Because it runs on rails, so *has* to be cleaner than a road vehicle, any road vehicle.
Come, come Rick, you should know by now on these forums only rail based solutions are the answer, even when there is compelling, overwhelming evidence that isn't the case !
That's the problem. NR or its successors will want to build a new railway (for which I agree there is no case) with all that that entails, rather than conservatively reinstating in-house, some part of the previous one, to no higher standard than the existing stub, which is what is desired.
That's the problem. NR or its successors will want to build a new railway (for which I agree there is no case) with all that that entails, rather than conservatively reinstating in-house, some part of the previous one, to no higher standard than the existing stub, which is what is desired.
The rail line to Matlock was only retained as Matlock is the administrative county town for Derbyshire and the route from Ambergate is short (<10 miles) and can be operated relatively cost-effectively for an hourly passenger service as a single track siding. There is no settlement of any size between Matlock and Buxton (Bakewell only has a population of 4,000) so there is no significant population to be served by any re-opened line between these 2 points. Substantial development that might increase passenger traffic is not feasible as the area is very hilly and sited in a National Park.
Far from considering re-opening lines through National Parks, in this age of austerity the government needs to look at existing heavily loss-making rail lines through sparsely populated areas (such as the Settle and Carlisle line) and consider whether the huge subsidies needed to keep them open are really worthwhile.
The rail line to Matlock was only retained as Matlock is the administrative county town for Derbyshire and the route from Ambergate is short (<10 miles) and can be operated relatively cost-effectively for an hourly passenger service as a single track siding. There is no settlement of any size between Matlock and Buxton (Bakewell only has a population of 4,000) so there is no significant population to be served by any re-opened line between these 2 points. Substantial development that might increase passenger traffic is not feasible as the area is very hilly and sited in a National Park.
Far from considering re-opening lines through National Parks, in this age of austerity the government needs to look at existing heavily loss-making rail lines through sparsely populated areas (such as the Settle and Carlisle line) and consider whether the huge subsidies needed to keep them open are really worthwhile.
I think I'll ignore the "suggestions" regarding the Settle and Carlisle line, given that they're clearly off-topic. Perhaps you may wish to test them in a new thread ?
In terms of the Monsall line, Buxton and Matlock are already sizable towns stranded at the end of branch lines. They would likely generate plenty of traffic between and beyond eachother, before you take into account greater access for tourists.
In terms of the Monsall line, Buxton and Matlock are already sizable towns stranded at the end of branch lines. They would likely generate plenty of traffic between and beyond each other, before you take into account greater access for tourists.
Stranded! Really? There are hourly rail connections from Buxton and Matlock to their nearest major city, which is the key service, with connections to London. There are adequate bus services from Matlock to Bakewell (2ph) and beyond to Buxton (1ph), which call at Matlock and Buxton railway stations.
Tourist traffic is only significant at irregular and unpredictable times and cannot form the basis for enhanced transport provision requiring major infrastructure. It is much better served by increased bus service provision/frequency at tourist peak times, in particular when buses used for schools traffic are otherwise available during school holidays, weekends and bank holidays (from Easter to October).
...because it only has to go as far as Matlock and back. If it had to go much further, the complexity increases as you need things like loops and signalling to allow a sensible frequency to operate.
Currently Ambergate Jn to Matlock takes 17.5 minutes, and the reverse 18.5 minutes. With an extra 30 seconds dwell for Matlock itself and a 5-minute turnround, the maximum additional runtime to allow a stub-end track with an hourly service is 7 minutes northbound and 6 minutes southbound*. The old Bakewell station is c.7.8 miles from Matlock, so assuming a 30 second stop at Darley Dale only you're looking at an average speed of about 75mph northbound and 85mph southbound. That's average, you'll need to slow down for the stop and for the curve at Rowsley. The Matlock branch is currently 50mph, according to Wikipedia (can't check the sectional appendix now). Of course you could avoid needing a 90mph railway straight after a 50mph railway by lifting the whole thing but that's more cost and it's doubtful you'd see a meaningful benefit with the number of stops between Ambergate and Matlock.
Extending to Bakewell as a 60mph railway from Ambergate Junction would lead to needing an extra unit in the cycle, a second platform at either Matlock or Bakewell (with associated signalling costs), and long dwell times at one or both ends of the service (or complex interworking of unit diagrams).
* - To operate 1tph on a stub-end 'One Train in Section' branch you need a runtime no more than 30 minutes in each direction, less margins and turnround.
The rail line to Matlock was only retained as Matlock is the administrative county town for Derbyshire and the route from Ambergate is short (<10 miles) and can be operated relatively cost-effectively for an hourly passenger service as a single track siding. There is no settlement of any size between Matlock and Buxton (Bakewell only has a population of 4,000) so there is no significant population to be served by any re-opened line between these 2 points. Substantial development that might increase passenger traffic is not feasible as the area is very hilly and sited in a National Park.
Far from considering re-opening lines through National Parks, in this age of austerity the government needs to look at existing heavily loss-making rail lines through sparsely populated areas (such as the Settle and Carlisle line) and consider whether the huge subsidies needed to keep them open are really worthwhile.
A geographical fact that is often overlooked is that the A6 road, predecessor of the M6, runs through Derby, Matlock, Bakewell, Buxton, Stockport and Manchester. The railway between these places by-passes Buxton.
The Victorian railway had 2 stations in Buxton, it never ran straight through. Currently two terminal platforms remain, the old London and North Western station, for hourly services to Manchester. They are augmented to half hourly at peak periods. Pre Covid Buxton's annual passenger numbers were approaching 350,000. (Glossop, the other west side Peak District terminal station, was seeing over a million pre-Covid.)
Coming from the south it was necessary to change trains at Millers Dale to take the branch line to the side by side Midland Railway station at Buxton. A major weakness in the restoration proposals is the incompatibility of the two separate Victorian railway systems around Buxton. It has left 3 lines in Buxton, the two through lines now used by freight, and the terminal passenger service.
A new through station could be built at enormous cost Whether a train operator would see any benefit in running a service that way must be even more doubtful than it may have been 150 years ago.
Far from considering re-opening lines through National Parks, in this age of austerity the government needs to look at existing heavily loss-making rail lines through sparsely populated areas (such as the Settle and Carlisle line) and consider whether the huge subsidies needed to keep them open are really worthwhile.
Far from considering re-opening lines through National Parks, in this age of austerity the government needs to look at existing heavily loss-making rail lines through sparsely populated areas (such as the Settle and Carlisle line) and consider whether the huge subsidies needed to keep them open are really worthwhile.
That's the problem. NR or its successors will want to build a new railway (for which I agree there is no case) with all that that entails, rather than conservatively reinstating in-house, some part of the previous one, to no higher standard than the existing stub, which is what is desired.
The problem here is "armchair experts" that seemingly don't understand that what they call "gold plating" is actually the minimum standards as required by current standards and legislation.
Interestingly, whilst it seems they would be quite happy for the railways to be allowed to continue to use standards from 50 or more years ago when building new, they don't agree with that when it comes to roads, road design, housing designs, airports and air traffic or industrial safety. So why should the rail network be granted dispensation to build to massively out of date standards ? And it's unlikely to be significantly cheaper to build to much lower standards, because you still have the fundamentals of raw material costs and labour supply - I can only assume the suggestion is to rip up some sidings which have pre-war bull-head rails and use that for building a "main line" as a way of saving cost.
If that's the case why not just seek running rights over Peak Rail to Rowsley then ? 25mph, light rail standard, slightly lower line speed than Ambergate - Matlock, but given the short distance, not enough to make a material difference in journey time given acceleration / braking. Comes a bit unstuck on accessibility standards though.
Either way, north of Rowsley is a pretty big gap over the A6 which would be neither cheap, nor simple to fix.
Out of interest what are the signalling arrangements for trains to transfer between NR and Peak Rail? I think it'd be easy enough to sort something out regardless on the days Peak Rail doesn't run, but might be slightly harder on the days they do. Longer-term you could always do a more Spa Valley Railway type arrangement with two independent tracks alongside each other.
Stranded! Really? There are hourly rail connections from Buxton and Matlock to their nearest major city, which is the key service, with connections to London. There are adequate bus services from Matlock to Bakewell (2ph) and beyond to Buxton (1ph), which call at Matlock and Buxton railway stations.
Tourist traffic is only significant at irregular and unpredictable times and cannot form the basis for enhanced transport provision requiring major infrastructure. It is much better served by increased bus service provision/frequency at tourist peak times, in particular when buses used for schools traffic are otherwise available during school holidays, weekends and bank holidays (from Easter to October).
People like to travel between and around their large, nearby settlements. It's not all about travel to and from London, particularly outside the South East.
Noting the bus service, I did once try to arrange a trip to Matlock for me and a friend using the hour + bus from Buxton. He's based in the Manchester area and would normally use the route round by train, however on this occasion, EMR were on strike so it had to be the bus. Given the prospect of a long bus leg he decided against (I would have for the novelty).
I can imagine many others would be put off by an hour + bus journey without recourse to a toilet.
...because it only has to go as far as Matlock and back. If it had to go much further, the complexity increases as you need things like loops and signalling to allow a sensible frequency to operate.
Currently Ambergate Jn to Matlock takes 17.5 minutes, and the reverse 18.5 minutes. With an extra 30 seconds dwell for Matlock itself and a 5-minute turnround, the maximum additional runtime to allow a stub-end track with an hourly service is 7 minutes northbound and 6 minutes southbound*. The old Bakewell station is c.7.8 miles from Matlock, so assuming a 30 second stop at Darley Dale only you're looking at an average speed of about 75mph northbound and 85mph southbound. That's average, you'll need to slow down for the stop and for the curve at Rowsley. The Matlock branch is currently 50mph, according to Wikipedia (can't check the sectional appendix now). Of course you could avoid needing a 90mph railway straight after a 50mph railway by lifting the whole thing but that's more cost and it's doubtful you'd see a meaningful benefit with the number of stops between Ambergate and Matlock.
Extending to Bakewell as a 60mph railway from Ambergate Junction would lead to needing an extra unit in the cycle, a second platform at either Matlock or Bakewell (with associated signalling costs), and long dwell times at one or both ends of the service (or complex interworking of unit diagrams).
* - To operate 1tph on a stub-end 'One Train in Section' branch you need a runtime no more than 30 minutes in each direction, less margins and turnround.
A geographical fact that is often overlooked is that the A6 road, predecessor of the M6, runs through Derby, Matlock, Bakewell, Buxton, Stockport and Manchester. The railway between these places by-passes Buxton.
The Victorian railway had 2 stations in Buxton, it never ran straight through. Currently two terminal platforms remain, the old London and North Western station, for hourly services to Manchester. They are augmented to half hourly at peak periods. Pre Covid Buxton's annual passenger numbers were approaching 350,000. (Glossop, the other west side Peak District terminal station, was seeing over a million pre-Covid.)
Coming from the south it was necessary to change trains at Millers Dale to take the branch line to the side by side Midland Railway station at Buxton. A major weakness in the restoration proposals is the incompatibility of the two separate Victorian railway systems around Buxton. It has left 3 lines in Buxton, the two through lines now used by freight, and the terminal passenger service.
A new through station could be built at enormous cost Whether a train operator would see any benefit in running a service that way must be even more doubtful than it may have been 150 years ago.
I think the differing systems at Buxton is over-egged. Even then the two stations were next door to eachother, and if you were desperate to run a through service, you could configure the layout to allow reversals via the existing station.
My preferred service pattern would be to extend the existing stopper to the environs of Buxton station and have more regional through service via Chinley.
The problem here is "armchair experts" that seemingly don't understand that what they call "gold plating" is actually the minimum standards as required by current standards and legislation.
Interestingly, whilst it seems they would be quite happy for the railways to be allowed to continue to use standards from 50 or more years ago when building new, they don't agree with that when it comes to roads, road design, housing designs, airports and air traffic or industrial safety. So why should the rail network be granted dispensation to build to massively out of date standards ? And it's unlikely to be significantly cheaper to build to much lower standards, because you still have the fundamentals of raw material costs and labour supply - I can only assume the suggestion is to rip up some sidings which have pre-war bull-head rails and use that for building a "main line" as a way of saving cost.
The road network seems to mostly be an outdated, unregulated deathtrap from what I can see.
I'd gladly have more rail network to standards of fifty years ago, which seem to be considerably safer than the roads, particularly if it means that as a pedestrian, I have to share the (often pavement-less) road with fewer vehicles hurtling around the place.
What the "health and safety at any cost" brigade don't understand is that having less railway is inherently less safe as it pushes more vehicles onto the road.
The road network seems to mostly be an outdated, unregulated deathtrap from what I can see.
I'd gladly have more rail network to standards of fifty years ago, which seem to be considerably safer than the roads, particularly if it means that as a pedestrian, I have to share the (often pavement-less) road with fewer vehicles hurtling around the place.
What the "health and safety at any cost" brigade don't understand is that having less railway is inherently less safe as it pushes more vehicles onto the road.
Sure, you can cite the miles of country lanes which may not have changed much, but pretty much every Motorway, major A road and a good chunk of B roads have all seen significant re-engineering in the last 40 years, especially where they either run through settlements - my parents live in what is effectively a hamlet which the only "main" road is a 'B' road at the top of the village which has about a dozen houses facing onto it. 30 years ago it was national speed limit through there - now it's 40mph with different road markings.
There is no way you'd be able to build a new B road, running past houses with a national speed limit. Yet in 1974 that would have been fine.
Sure, you can cite the miles of country lanes which may not have changed much, but pretty much every Motorway, major A road and a good chunk of B roads have all seen significant re-engineering in the last 40 years, especially where they either run through settlements - my parents live in what is effectively a hamlet which the only "main" road is a 'B' road at the top of the village which has about a dozen houses facing onto it. 30 years ago it was national speed limit through there - now it's 40mph with different road markings.
There is no way you'd be able to build a new B road, running past houses with a national speed limit. Yet in 1974 that would have been fine.
The difference is that the whole of the railway network has to conform to very stringent modern safety standards, where as most of the road network operates the same as it did hundreds of years ago (arguably winding country roads are a more relevant comparison with a rail extension in the Peak District).
And look at tram lines. They have different construction standards, yet arguably the extended traffic from Matlock would bear more similarity to those routes than to the ECML. Maybe there's an argument for more of a gradation in how heavily a railway line is engineered, dependant on traffic type.
The difference is that the whole of the railway network has to conform to very stringent modern safety standards, where as most of the road network operates the same as it did hundreds of years ago (arguably winding country roads are a more relevant comparison with a rail extension in the Peak District).
And look at tram lines. They have different construction standards, yet arguably the extended traffic from Matlock would bear more similarity to those routes than to the ECML. Maybe there's an argument for more of a gradation in how heavily a railway line is engineered, dependant on traffic type.
Bit in bold - again, simply untrue. There are significant areas where that isn't the case - your pet of 3rd rail electrification being a case in point. If it was genuinely the case that
The whole of the railway network has to conform to very stringent modern safety standards
then there would be a rolling programme of replacing exposed 3rd rail with a safer system. Instead what isn't allowed and isn't acceptable is simply saying "just bung some con rail down in the way it was done in the '80s" for new installation - in the same way an engineering assesment of a new B road would be done to current standards, not what was acceptable in the 1980s.
Bit in bold - again, simply untrue. There are significant areas where that isn't the case - your pet of 3rd rail electrification being a case in point. If it was genuinely the case that
then there would be a rolling programme of replacing exposed 3rd rail with a safer system. Instead what isn't allowed and isn't acceptable is simply saying "just bung some con rail down in the way it was done in the '80s" for new installation - in the same way an engineering assesment of a new B road would be done to current standards, not what was acceptable in the 1980s.
The way the railway operates has changed beyond recognition. Look at the development of signalling and fail safe technology compared to forty years ago.
Road transport hasn't changed since they took away the man with the red flag.
At least the third rail is fenced off and on private property. As a pedestrian there's no way that I can avoid dangerous traffic flows.
The way the railway operates has changed beyond recognition. Look at the development of signalling and fail safe technology compared to forty years ago.
Road transport hasn't changed since they took away the man with the red flag.
At least the third rail is fenced off and on private property. As a pedestrian there's no way that I can avoid dangerous traffic flows.
The roads have been subject to the same general updating of safety standards and the hotchpotch of grandfathered routes with totally different standards as the railway. Dual carriageways are among the easier things to spot, but 3.5m lanes with 1m hard strips on single carriageways are also noticeable on many a moderate town's bypass.
The roads have been subject to the same general updating of safety standards and the hotchpotch of grandfathered routes with totally different standards as the railway. Dual carriageways are among the easier things to spot, but 3.5m lanes with 1m hard strips on single carriageways are also noticeable on many a moderate town's bypass.
I can still find myself having to walk along a road without a pavement where vehicles travelling at speed have no safety controls other than the skill and attention of the driver driving them.
A railway operating (and built) to the standards of fifty years ago is a safety shang-ri-la in comparison.
I can still find myself having to walk along a road without a pavement where vehicles travelling at speed have no safety controls other than the skill and attention of the driver driving them.
A railway operating (and built) to the standards of fifty years ago is a safety shang-ri-la in comparison.
50 years would be lovely. Plenty of ppatform stepping distances out there that wouldn't meet the safety standards of even 100 years ago, and not just in the sticks either!
50 years would be lovely. Plenty of ppatform stepping distances out there that wouldn't meet the safety standards of even 100 years ago, and not just in the sticks either!
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
