Derby Telegraph "Plans to convert Monsal Trail back into railway takes 'significant step forward'"

[yorksrob]

Tunnels which may not have sufficient clearance for either modern freight or OHLE.

Viaducts which by virtue of the Victoruan construction methods used to build them require difficult and costly maintenance.

All through an Aera of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

If you want to build a modern transport system you don't do it by rebuilding substandard Victorian alignments. So basically you want this for nostalgic rather than practical reasons.

They do require costly maintenance methods and fortunately, they're being maintained to this day.

The truth is, we build so many railways these days, there's no rule book as to what sort of alignment we use.

Yes, for a high speed railway, one wouldn't dream of reconditioning existing infrastructure. For a regional route, the calculation may be different.

Which again, based on the E-W rail section between Bicester and Bletchley costing £1.3 billion for 19 miles ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ting-officer-assessment-april-2021#regularity ) puts this at around £2 billion. The bit that everyone goes la la la about when scrabbling around for excuses to build it.

That suggests using the existing structures where possible makes sense.

But I come back to my earlier point, is £1.3 billion unusual for 19 miles in road building ? If not, why are we so worried about it for rail ?

 

[zwk500]

They do require costly maintenance methods and fortunately, they're being maintained to this day.

The truth is, we build so many railways these days, there's no rule book as to what sort of alignment we use.

There are very clear rules on what sort of alignment we use, specified in the design standards for railways. Maximum and preferred values for pretty much everything is stated, as well as the conditions for exceptions to the rules.

Yes, for a high speed railway, one wouldn't dream of reconditioning existing infrastructure. For a regional route, the calculation may be different.

Indeed. Although if you want freight and intercity you'd want to try and pre-empt Gauge and OLE clearances at the most cost-effective time. Alternatively if it's only for a local stopper you can make all sorts of compromises to bring costs down.

But I come back to my earlier point, is £1.3 billion unusual for 19 miles in road building ?

The A585 dual carriageway Fleetwood bypass has just been built and cost £162m for 3 miles, or £54m a mile https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/north-west/a585-windy-harbour-to-skippool/. £1,300m for 19 miles works out as £68m/mile, which isn't incomparable for a line with more complex engineering, a signalling system, more bridges, and all the complications that tying into the HS2 worksite and a live WCML came with.

If not, why are we so worried about it for rail ?

We are worried about it because each project must justify it's costs with a return in some form to the taxpayer or the economy. £1.3bn for a 20-mile railway that generates £5bn worth of economic activity annually would be a bargain. £1.3bn for a 20-mile railway that generates £10m worth of economic activity annually would be a quite bad deal.

 

[A0wen]

They do require costly maintenance methods and fortunately, they're being maintained to this day.

But those on the abandoned line are not being maintained to the same standard - after all the maintenance demands when the trafgic is a few walkers and cyclists is quite different to several hundred ton trains.

The truth is, we build so many railways these days, there's no rule book as to what sort of alignment we use.

Well that's not true. As with roads it depends on the traffic it is going to handle. So it is no accident that the two High Speed lines have used new formations (save a very short stretch of the old GCR in Bucks / Northants which was pretty straight and level).

Whereas regional lines such as EWR or Borders have reused closed formations which matches the semi fast nature of the services they have / will provide.

City or suburban reopenings again have tended to reuse slow, previously abandoned formations which is fine for lower speed, regular stop suburban services.

So it comes back to what *kind* of traffic you want. Just because the Victorians built lines and sent all the traffic types alomg there doesn't mean that's appropriate for a modern transport system. So do you want a modern transport museum or a glorified museum piece ?

 

[yorksrob]

There are very clear rules on what sort of alignment we use, specified in the design standards for railways. Maximum and preferred values for pretty much everything is stated, as well as the conditions for exceptions to the rules.

Indeed. Although if you want freight and intercity you'd want to try and pre-empt Gauge and OLE clearances at the most cost-effective time. Alternatively if it's only for a local stopper you can make all sorts of compromises to bring costs down.

That's a fair point. I do think that if we're prepared to use an existing alignment because it's always been there, there should be some form of grandfather rights to allow a similar existing alignment to be brought back into use.

The A585 dual carriageway Fleetwood bypass has just been built and cost £162m for 3 miles, or £54m a mile https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/north-west/a585-windy-harbour-to-skippool/. £1,300m for 19 miles works out as £68m/mile, which isn't incomparable for a line with more complex engineering, a signalling system, more bridges, and all the complications that tying into the HS2 worksite and a live WCML came with..

Well quite. One would hope that reconditioning wahat is in effect, an existing line, should release some savings.

Even if not, it shows that railways aren't overly expensive.

We are worried about it because each project must justify it's costs with a return in some form to the taxpayer or the economy. £1.3bn for a 20-mile railway that generates £5bn worth of economic activity annually would be a bargain. £1.3bn for a 20-mile railway that generates £10m worth of economic activity annually would be a quite bad deal.

Is there not an element of being trapped by history though ?

A similar railway that had escaped the axe could be delivering huge benefits, yet due to an accident of history, a railway that could provide just as much benefit is being prevented on account of a lack of capital up front ?

 

[BrianW]

... each project must justify it's costs with a return in some form to the taxpayer or the economy. £1.3bn for a 20-mile railway that generates £5bn worth of economic activity annually would be a bargain. £1.3bn for a 20-mile railway that generates £10m worth of economic activity annually would be a quite bad deal.

Benefit-Cost evaluation has long been questioned, especially as both sides of the equation are very open to 'abuse', e.g. related to optimism bias. It is ope to the charge that one side or the other has been overestimated, and/or the other side underestimated.

IIRC, such evaluations have been called into question recently in relation to East-West Rail and the benefits of this or that route in Bedford and on to Cambridge. Those areas are much more likely to involve issues related to new housing and related current and future employment opportunities than I would imagine being in play in the Peak District.

In the end it's more about politics than economics; and I think you'll find the decisions lie with the former, as, in a democracy, should be expected, as I'm sure you do.

 

[A0wen]

That's a fair point. I do think that if we're prepared to use an existing alignment because it's always been there, there should be some form of grandfather rights to allow a similar existing alignment to be brought back into use.

Why? @Neptune made the point earlier, if you sell something because you've stopped using it, you lose the right to try to reclaim it for your use.

And why should rail have this special treatment ? Why not airfields or canals or farmland ? After all that land existed *before* the railway, why should the railway have an automatic option to reclaim it having abandoned it over half a century ago ?

 

[zwk500]

That's a fair point. I do think that if we're prepared to use an existing alignment because it's always been there, there should be some form of grandfather rights to allow a similar existing alignment to be brought back into use.

And tie ourselves back into the same holes as other lines that escaped closure? Only where the need is clear and no reasonable alternative exists, which is the current position (as an example, the maximum normal gradient is 1 in 100, and I've seen designs as steep as 1 in 40 proposed in modern designs because there's no other space.

A similar railway that had escaped the axe could be delivering huge benefits, yet due to an accident of history, a railway that could provide just as much benefit is being prevented on account of a lack of capital up front ?

quite so, and it's why I've said before that a lot of mistakes were made in actually ripping up track rather than simply disconnecting it and coming back later. Equally I've been involved in projects with active railways that have stalled for lack of capital investment.

Benefit-Cost evaluation has long been questioned, especially as both sides of the equation are very open to 'abuse', e.g. related to optimism bias. It is ope to the charge that one side or the other has been overestimated, and/or the other side underestimated.

It's right to constantly question it, that's how we improve the methodologies involved and also increase accountability for decision making. The BCR process isn't perfect and I make no pretense that it is. For people interested, the relatively new Welsh guidelines (search for WelTAG) show what kind of other factors could be considered.

IIRC, such evaluations have been called into question recently in relation to East-West Rail and the benefits of this or that route in Bedford and on to Cambridge. Those areas are much more likely to involve issues related to new housing and related current and future employment opportunities than I would imagine being in play in the Peak District.

They will always be called into question by the side that doesn't like the answer!

In the end it's more about politics than economics; and I think you'll find the decisions lie with the former, as, in a democracy, should be expected, as I'm sure you do.

I'm not sure I quite get your phrasing but yes, the ultimate decision whether or not to fund an investment is a political one taken by ministers and the BCR is used to inform that decision but can be overridden if the minister so decides. And then, at the end of the day, the electorate is allowed to have its say at the ballot box.

 

[yorksrob]

And tie ourselves back into the same holes as other lines that escaped closure? Only where the need is clear and no reasonable alternative exists, which is the current position (as an example, the maximum normal gradient is 1 in 100, and I've seen designs as steep as 1 in 40 proposed in modern designs because there's no other space.
.

Far better to be tied to an imperfect Victorian railway line, as opposed to no line at all and meandering bus journeys without toilets etc....

 

[Chester1]

If the goal is to improve rail access to the Peak District, how about:

1) Build a station at the end of surviving section of the Ashbourne line. This would provide easy access to Tissington trail for rail passengers and a car park next to A515. A station could be built in the south of Buxton too.

2) Build a station around the site of Blackwell Mill, just off the freight line. This would provide easy access to Monsall trail for rail passengers and a car park next to A6.

3) Close current Buxton railway station and build a station at Charles Street to serve both lines.

 

[A0wen]

Far better to be tied to an imperfect Victorian railway line, as opposed to no line at all and meandering bus journeys without toilets etc....

But it's only an hour *if* you're going from Buxton to Matlock, which most people aren't - you've argued that Bakewell is a traffic destination - that's pretty much in the middle of thecbus journey, so is about 30 mins to either Matlock of Buxton. And for locals that's a better option not least because the bus will stop nearer their homes than the stations on the Peak line which were often away from the villages they served.

 

[Dr Hoo]

But it's only an hour *if* you're going from Buxton to Matlock, which most people aren't - you've argued that Bakewell is a traffic destination - that's pretty much in the middle of thecbus journey, so is about 30 mins to either Matlock of Buxton. And for locals that's a better option not least because the bus will stop nearer their homes than the stations on the Peak line which were often away from the villages they served.

Exactly, the bus goes close to the shops in both Buxton and Bakewell whereas the station sites are a hilly walk in each. Plus the bus goes through the middle of Taddington and Ashford-in-the-Water, the material intermediate villages. Whereas the rail route basically avoids everywhere and the former station sites were all in ‘no pavement, no street lighting’ territory.

 

[DM352]

I cannot see it reopening as it is like the northern version of the Lewes Uckfield route that comes up every 5-10 years with nothing done. It is likely down to money though the A6 is now 50/40 mph with lots more traffic compared to chunks of national speed limit 25 years ago.

Used to be with Peak Rail years ago and they had a 15 year plan to do the Matlock Buxton job I recall. Then they built the £50k bridge after fundraising and then shortly moved to Darley Dale leaving Buxton and the bridge empty but think it was something to do with the Matlock bypass. In hindsight would rather NR go to Matlock to Rowsley/Bakewell and have bus connections there.

I like the idea of Blackwell Mill or Hurdlow as possible stations.

 

[BrianW]

I'm not sure I quite get your phrasing but yes, the ultimate decision whether or not to fund an investment is a political one taken by ministers and the BCR is used to inform that decision but can be overridden if the minister so decides. And then, at the end of the day, the electorate is allowed to have its say at the ballot box.

I am suggesting (in my roundabout way?- I was in Oxford for many years, getting used to 'high table' circumlocution; and had a minor stroke last year!) that politics is everything. There's little value in even thinking up 'schemes' that have no political 'win'; and then the economics are contrived to fit.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly, the bus goes close to the shops in both Buxton and Bakewell whereas the station sites are a hilly walk in each. Plus the bus goes through the middle of Taddington and Ashford-in-the-Water, the material intermediate villages. Whereas the rail route basically avoids everywhere and the former station sites were all in ‘no pavement, no street lighting’ territory.

Buxton station is about two minutes from the centre of Buxton, especially the tourist sites.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Buxton station is about two minutes from the centre of Buxton, especially the tourist sites.

Got to be again least six minutes from the station to Buxton Opera House or to Buxton Pudding Emporium!

 

[Dr Hoo]

Got to be again least six minutes from the station to Buxton Opera House or to Buxton Pudding Emporium!

Google Maps suggests over 10 mins to popular locations in Buxton such as the Pavillion Gardens and Market. Neither Buxton nor Bakewell (nor Matlock) are the sort of places where one can stride briskly about given that there are roads and/or bridges to cross, with narrow pavements amid many visitors pottering along with children, dogs, etc.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps I'm a fast walker !

Buxton station really is very well sited.

 

[Killingworth]

Perhaps I'm a fast walker !

Buxton station really is very well sited.

On that I'd agree! Bakewell isn't.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Perhaps I'm a fast walker !

Buxton station really is very well sited.

On that I'd agree! Bakewell isn't.

Given the inevitable geographic compromises in a hill town I'd agree that Buxton isn't too bad but it's still not as handy as the range of bus stops.

Quite a lot of this thread has seemed to favour a new/replacement 'through' station for services via Whaley Bridge and towards Chinley and/or Millers Dale, let alone Higher Buxton on the line towards Hindlow. These would seem to be a lot worse placed than what exists at the moment.

 

[HSTEd]

Given the inevitable geographic compromises in a hill town I'd agree that Buxton isn't too bad but it's still not as handy as the range of bus stops.

Quite a lot of this thread has seemed to favour a new/replacement 'through' station for services via Whaley Bridge and towards Chinley and/or Millers Dale, let alone Higher Buxton on the line towards Hindlow. These would seem to be a lot worse placed than what exists at the moment.

Wouldn't a through Buxton station only be about 200m from the existing one?

 

[The Planner]

Wouldn't a through Buxton station only be about 200m from the existing one?

More like 500m, you need it clear of the S&C and space between the main line and freight sidings. You would be looking along Hogshaw Drive, unless you wanted some sort of curved island between Lightwood Road and Charles St which should get a 6 car platform in.

 

[Llandudno]

I think we need a sense of realism here it’s not going to happen…

So instead why not improve the bus network in the Peak District with a series of high quality routes connecting with trains at key stations with integrated ticketing.

The connections with the TransPeak at Buxton and Matlock are poor, the TransPeak buses are shabby and long in the tooth and take over an hour between Matlock and Buxton because of a convoluted route into Buxton.

There is no TransPeak bus arrival into Buxton before 0910 so impossible to reach Manchester before about 1030, similarly the last southbound TransPeak leaves Buxton at 1800, so realistically you would have to leave Manchester just after 1600 in order to catch it!

Improvements to TransPeak and other key bus routes can be done in a matter of months, not decades (if ever!)

 

[Irascible]

And why should rail have this special treatment ? Why not airfields or canals or farmland ? After all that land existed *before* the railway, why should the railway have an automatic option to reclaim it having abandoned it over half a century ago ?

As a minor deviation - airfields are currently classed as brownfield sites ( there is a campaign atm to get them classed as greenfield, which would stop developers buying up working airfields to build on ), how are disused railway corridors classed?

 

[A0wen]

I think we need a sense of realism here it’s not going to happen…

So instead why not improve the bus network in the Peak District with a series of high quality routes connecting with trains at key stations with integrated ticketing.

The connections with the TransPeak at Buxton and Matlock are poor, the TransPeak buses are shabby and long in the tooth and take over an hour between Matlock and Buxton because of a convoluted route into Buxton.

There is no TransPeak bus arrival into Buxton before 0910 so impossible to reach Manchester before about 1030, similarly the last southbound TransPeak leaves Buxton at 1800, so realistically you would have to leave Manchester just after 1600 in order to catch it!

Improvements to TransPeak and other key bus routes can be done in a matter of months, not decades (if ever!)

The one point I would make is the number of people wanting to travel from Matlock to Manchester is likely to be minimal. And for those that do, there is a regular bus from Matlock to Chesterfield (Stagecoach x17) which takes 30 mins - first bus at 06.04, getting to Chesterfield at 6.35 - a 15 min walk to the rail station and you can get the 7.08 which gets to Manchester Piccadilly at 8.37. The last bus back from Chesterfield is 22.35 getting to Matlock at 23.06.

So for places like Matlock or Bakewell, better bus services would make sense, but Buxton may not be the best railhead for those heading to Manchester or the north west.

 

[A0wen]

As a minor deviation - airfields are currently classed as brownfield sites ( there is a campaign atm to get them classed as greenfield, which would stop developers buying up working airfields to build on ), how are disused railway corridors classed?

I don't know - probably varies, so in urban areas they may well be brownfield, but I'd be very surprised if the line through the peaks was classed as brownfield.

 

[stevieinselby]

It hasn't really been mentioned yet that once a former railway line has been converted to a popular cycle and walking route, it's quite unpopular for the railway to get it back without a replacement. Building a new path alongside (but not too close) isn't that expensive compared to reopening a line but it isn't zero and would be an issue at Headstone Tunnel. A major draw to the former railway routes is the fairly flat terrain, any replacement path will need to be similarly flat.

Quite. If bringing a mainline railway to the area requires the destruction of two of its biggest attractions – the Monsal Trail and Peak Rail – then it isn't going to help anyone.
The nature of the route, with numerous tunnels, viaducts, cuttings and ledges means that it would be completely implausible to widen the formation in situ to allow a 2-track railway and a leisure route ... but moving or removing the leisure route would negate its draw to tourists.

 

[Mr. SW]

I've been very quietly observing the comments but I think the time has come to speak out.

From what I've read, you might as well be building a 1000-mile line through the desolate frozen tundra of Canada or across the Gobi Desert. This is rural Derbyshire, part of one of the most densely populated countries in the world!

Yes, it would be expensive. Yes, it would never make money. Yes, Bakewell Station was badly sited. Yes, it would mean changes to the Monsal Trail.

But, is it all bad?

I've had a look at some of the proposals on-line and they vary from the faintly demented to the thoroughly insane, but could merit be pulled from the mire?

Let's for the sake of the argument look at some inconvenient truths.

The Peak District National Park is indeed beautiful. I have visited a number of times. But it is, apart from the general topology, artificial. It is not pristine. If it was, it would be covered by impenetrable forest full of wolves and beavers. But it has been mined and farmed for thousands of years. The hand of man lies heavily across its landscape, producing the appearance it has today. Reinstating a railway along a route that has already been technically ruined is no loss to the environment.

The Monsal Trail is a wonderful thing, and I have walked the section between Blackwell Mill through Chee Dale. But it only exists because of the disused railway. But it used to run a different route before the tunnels were refurbished, lit and surfaced. It could return to its old route.

The area is thinly populated. Most areas are. Building a line through a thinly populated area doesn't mean you shouldn't build it. The area that West Coast Main Line is built through between Carlisle and Lanark is almost completely devoid of human life. Its the destinations that are important. The connectivity. The little towns on the way. The original promotors of the line knew this, as did the builders of the Matlock-Buxton line.

Peak Rail. Yup.

So, I came up with this.

The line needs to be quick to implement, easy to operate, simple in infrastructure, and above all cheap.

Cheap, Cheap, Cheap!

Strip everything out that you don't need. And I mean everything!
So, using the MEMRAP proposals as a basis, let's pull its guts out.

Does the line need to support express/through passenger services? No. Out.
Does it need to be available for diversionary services? No. Out it goes.
Frequent services to Manchester and Derby? Nada. Off.
Does it need freight trains? Negative. Vamoose.
Do trains need to go to Chinley? No they don't. Out.

Here are the proposed stations: Buxton (Relocated/Annexe), Blackwell Mill, Millers Dale, Monsal Dale, Great Longstone, Hassop, Bakewell, Haddon Hall, Rowsley, Darley Dale.

Get rid of these stations entirely: Blackwell Mill, Monsal Dale, Hassop, *Haddon Hall (*What were they thinking?)
These stations open only Weekends all year and daily Summer only: Millers Dale, Great Longstone.
Remaining stations retained for general use for local reasons.

Buxton (Annexe) will be on the curved track between Lightwood Road and King Street. The radius of the curve is about 16chains (320metres) so would require derogations. Access will be from the main station via a path, which will need to pass underneath the Hindlow line. The alternative position on the Buxton Water site will not be used as it will involve pointwork and signalling.
Millers Dale will be by, with or alongside the existing station site.
Ditto Great Longstone and Bakewell.
Rowsley would be positioned slightly to the south of its original site to allow for the raised bridge over the A6.
Rowsley South (PR) will not be served.
Darley Dale would be as today.
Matlock Riverside will be removed.

Now we can start playing round with track and services.

The line will be single track, and will start from a turnout at Blackwell Mill/Topley Pike to an end-on junction at Matlock. This will enable track to be aligned more-or-less in the centre of most overline structures, with a couple of exceptions. This will solve most of the clearance problems.

There is scope for a dynamic loop between Northwood (Adjacent to the north end of Peak Rail's site) to a point just to the south of Matlock. But this will only appear if the traffic demands it.

So that's two turnouts for the basic scheme, four with the dynamic loop, and add one for Peak Rail depot access. No more.

Level crossings, both public and private will need to be, as far as possible, abolished. Those at Darley Dale could prove problematic though due to adjacent properties and businesses.

Signalling will be arranged to suit this scheme in any format. And minimal.

This will, in conclusion, just about, and I mean just, scrape it. I can hear the grinding noises now.

Buy some buses.

 

[The Planner]

I've been very quietly observing the comments but I think the time has come to speak out.

From what I've read, you might as well be building a 1000-mile line through the desolate frozen tundra of Canada or across the Gobi Desert. This is rural Derbyshire, part of one of the most densely populated countries in the world!

Yes, it would be expensive. Yes, it would never make money. Yes, Bakewell Station was badly sited. Yes, it would mean changes to the Monsal Trail.

But, is it all bad?

I've had a look at some of the proposals on-line and they vary from the faintly demented to the thoroughly insane, but could merit be pulled from the mire?

Let's for the sake of the argument look at some inconvenient truths.

The Peak District National Park is indeed beautiful. I have visited a number of times. But it is, apart from the general topology, artificial. It is not pristine. If it was, it would be covered by impenetrable forest full of wolves and beavers. But it has been mined and farmed for thousands of years. The hand of man lies heavily across its landscape, producing the appearance it has today. Reinstating a railway along a route that has already been technically ruined is no loss to the environment.

The Monsal Trail is a wonderful thing, and I have walked the section between Blackwell Mill through Chee Dale. But it only exists because of the disused railway. But it used to run a different route before the tunnels were refurbished, lit and surfaced. It could return to its old route.

The area is thinly populated. Most areas are. Building a line through a thinly populated area doesn't mean you shouldn't build it. The area that West Coast Main Line is built through between Carlisle and Lanark is almost completely devoid of human life. Its the destinations that are important. The connectivity. The little towns on the way. The original promotors of the line knew this, as did the builders of the Matlock-Buxton line.

Peak Rail. Yup.

So, I came up with this.

The line needs to be quick to implement, easy to operate, simple in infrastructure, and above all cheap.

Cheap, Cheap, Cheap!

Strip everything out that you don't need. And I mean everything!
So, using the MEMRAP proposals as a basis, let's pull its guts out.

Does the line need to support express/through passenger services? No. Out.
Does it need to be available for diversionary services? No. Out it goes.
Frequent services to Manchester and Derby? Nada. Off.
Does it need freight trains? Negative. Vamoose.
Do trains need to go to Chinley? No they don't. Out.

Here are the proposed stations: Buxton (Relocated/Annexe), Blackwell Mill, Millers Dale, Monsal Dale, Great Longstone, Hassop, Bakewell, Haddon Hall, Rowsley, Darley Dale.

Get rid of these stations entirely: Blackwell Mill, Monsal Dale, Hassop, *Haddon Hall (*What were they thinking?)
These stations open only Weekends all year and daily Summer only: Millers Dale, Great Longstone.
Remaining stations retained for general use for local reasons.

Buxton (Annexe) will be on the curved track between Lightwood Road and King Street. The radius of the curve is about 16chains (320metres) so would require derogations. Access will be from the main station via a path, which will need to pass underneath the Hindlow line. The alternative position on the Buxton Water site will not be used as it will involve pointwork and signalling.
Millers Dale will be by, with or alongside the existing station site.
Ditto Great Longstone and Bakewell.
Rowsley would be positioned slightly to the south of its original site to allow for the raised bridge over the A6.
Rowsley South (PR) will not be served.
Darley Dale would be as today.
Matlock Riverside will be removed.

Now we can start playing round with track and services.

The line will be single track, and will start from a turnout at Blackwell Mill/Topley Pike to an end-on junction at Matlock. This will enable track to be aligned more-or-less in the centre of most overline structures, with a couple of exceptions. This will solve most of the clearance problems.

There is scope for a dynamic loop between Northwood (Adjacent to the north end of Peak Rail's site) to a point just to the south of Matlock. But this will only appear if the traffic demands it.

So that's two turnouts for the basic scheme, four with the dynamic loop, and add one for Peak Rail depot access. No more.

Level crossings, both public and private will need to be, as far as possible, abolished. Those at Darley Dale could prove problematic though due to adjacent properties and businesses.

Signalling will be arranged to suit this scheme in any format. And minimal.

This will, in conclusion, just about, and I mean just, scrape it. I can hear the grinding noises now.

Buy some buses.

Scrape what? That basically doesnt allow any kind of service to run hence making it even less likely that the minuscule chance it has anyway.

 

[florence]

I think we need a sense of realism here it’s not going to happen…

So instead why not improve the bus network in the Peak District with a series of high quality routes connecting with trains at key stations with integrated ticketing.

The connections with the TransPeak at Buxton and Matlock are poor, the TransPeak buses are shabby and long in the tooth and take over an hour between Matlock and Buxton because of a convoluted route into Buxton.

There is no TransPeak bus arrival into Buxton before 0910 so impossible to reach Manchester before about 1030, similarly the last southbound TransPeak leaves Buxton at 1800, so realistically you would have to leave Manchester just after 1600 in order to catch it!

Improvements to TransPeak and other key bus routes can be done in a matter of months, not decades (if ever!)

Just to add further remarks onto the comments about the TP service;

- Most of the passenger flow on this service is between Bakewell and Derby. I've known frequently Buxton-Bakewell to carry no more than a handful of passengers.
- There was once earlier and later buses along the full route back in the day, I'm assuming they were axed due to low passenger numbers.
- The long journey time between Buxton and Matlock is partly due to the indirect route into Buxton yes, but it's also timetabled rather conservatively. It's not uncommon to be waiting 5 minutes at Taddington, then another 3 at Ashford-in-the-Water, then another 5 at Bakewell, then be struggling to keep to time until somehow managing to be waiting in Belper for 10 minutes.
- The vehicles are unfortunately in poor condition, however they're fast approaching 600k miles on a chassis that is essentially a glorified Dennis Dart. They've been worked extremely hard, and as any Derbyshire resident or frequent visitor will tell you, the state of the roads (especially to the south of Buxton) are in incredibly poor condition.

 

[Meerkat]

and as any Derbyshire resident or frequent visitor will tell you, the state of the roads (especially to the south of Buxton) are in incredibly poor condition.

The roads are shocking - the quarry lorries are obliterating them.
One pothole north of Buxton wrecked my front tyre, and I felt lucky it didn’t knacker the rear on that side too. Bit surprised the wheels stayed on it was such a massive thump.