I could see the merits in that arrangement - although seeing as it would only really be feasible to have 1 track with passing loops, it might be tricky to fit all that down there. The problem is that this risks becoming too much of a local line - neither the Buxton nor Matlock ends are fast, and so it would become a slow route that would be hard to market as an express - I can't imagine Derby - Manchester would sustain such a service, and it may not be the quickest option from either Notts or Leicester.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
My idea for reopening Buxton-Matlock
- Thread starter yorksrob
- Start date
- Status
I could see the merits in that arrangement - although seeing as it would only really be feasible to have 1 track with passing loops, it might be tricky to fit all that down there. The problem is that this risks becoming too much of a local line - neither the Buxton nor Matlock ends are fast, and so it would become a slow route that would be hard to market as an express - I can't imagine Derby - Manchester would sustain such a service, and it may not be the quickest option from either Notts or Leicester.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
What exactly is the proposal here?
Presumably rebuilding from Matlock to Peak Forest? Then via Great Rocks to Chinley and thus to Manchester?
Or a triangular junction to allow (sort of) access to Buxton?
Are we talking a Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Piccadilly stopper?
Or diverting the Liverpool - Norwich trains that way? (In which case what about Liverpool - Sheffield passengers, and Sheffield - Norwich passengers?
Or both?
As the MR, the LMS and BR found - it's a conundrum. (Change at Miller's Dale for Buxton.
)
Presumably rebuilding from Matlock to Peak Forest? Then via Great Rocks to Chinley and thus to Manchester?
Or a triangular junction to allow (sort of) access to Buxton?
Are we talking a Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Piccadilly stopper?
Or diverting the Liverpool - Norwich trains that way? (In which case what about Liverpool - Sheffield passengers, and Sheffield - Norwich passengers?
Or both?
As the MR, the LMS and BR found - it's a conundrum. (Change at Miller's Dale for Buxton.
)
What exactly is the proposal here?
Presumably rebuilding from Matlock to Peak Forest? Then via Great Rocks to Chinley and thus to Manchester?
Or a triangular junction to allow (sort of) access to Buxton?
Are we talking a Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Piccadilly stopper?
Or diverting the Liverpool - Norwich trains that way? (In which case what about Liverpool - Sheffield passengers, and Sheffield - Norwich passengers?
Or both?
As the MR, the LMS and BR found - it's a conundrum. (Change at Miller's Dale for Buxton.
I would favour a triangular junction. Then, as a start the stopper to Matlock could be extended to Buxton to serve intermediate settlements and connect Buxton to the South. I would also have an inter-regional semi-fast via Chinley serving Matlock and Bakewell. Not sure if it would be better to divert the existing Nottingham service (freeing up it's path via Sheffield) or have a new service going via Leicester. Perhaps a London-Sheffield could divide at Derby.
Last edited:
How would you get into Buxton?
What exactly is the proposal here?
Presumably rebuilding from Matlock to Peak Forest? Then via Great Rocks to Chinley and thus to Manchester?
Or a triangular junction to allow (sort of) access to Buxton?
Are we talking a Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Piccadilly stopper?
Or diverting the Liverpool - Norwich trains that way? (In which case what about Liverpool - Sheffield passengers, and Sheffield - Norwich passengers?
Or both?
As the MR, the LMS and BR found - it's a conundrum. (Change at Miller's Dale for Buxton.
The section from Manchester to Chinley is speedy enough. Matlock is slow, but it is a single track branch. If the route were double track from Ambergate to Chinley, this could probably be a lot quicker.
It would be remarkably easy to build a spur off of the line towards Peak Forest/Millers Dale to the vicinity of the existing station. Infact, I believe Peak Rail already constructed a platform there some years back with a view to starting their project from there.
Not sure diverting the Notts - Liv train is a good idea, bit I could see the logoc in having a maybe bi-hourly train divising at Derby. Is it possible to run 7+4 on a Meridian, as you could divide the last 4 cars, but this may not fit in platforms at London/Leicester/Derby. An interesting idea though.
If not, perhaps some shuffling of meridian carriages could be arranged so that there's an additional one on the other Sheffield service and one fewer on the Sheffield portion of this one.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Manchester-Nottingham is just 58 miles (as the crow flies) but usually takes 1 hour 50 minutes on the Liverpool-Norwich trains. The double back at Sheffield alone takes 15-17 minutes (measured by the interval between the trains passing Dore Station Junction) - which is basically a complete waste of time for through passengers. I'm guessing that the curviness of the line between Dore and Stockport must add some time too.
In view of the long double-back at Sheffield, I really can't see it making much sense to continue to do that if the Matlock-Buxton line was open (with reasonable linespeeds and with a chord allowing trains to avoid Matlock). So I would imagine the most sensible service pattern as far as fast trains is concerned would be to run the Liverpool-Norwich trains via Bakewell and Derby. And perhaps have new hourly Nottingham-Leeds and Liverpool-Sheffield-somewhere (Doncaster? Retford-Lincoln? Barnsley?) trains to serve Sheffield.
In view of the long double-back at Sheffield, I really can't see it making much sense to continue to do that if the Matlock-Buxton line was open (with reasonable linespeeds and with a chord allowing trains to avoid Matlock). So I would imagine the most sensible service pattern as far as fast trains is concerned would be to run the Liverpool-Norwich trains via Bakewell and Derby. And perhaps have new hourly Nottingham-Leeds and Liverpool-Sheffield-somewhere (Doncaster? Retford-Lincoln? Barnsley?) trains to serve Sheffield.
Last edited:
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 7,357
the Peak Rail project would have used the site of the Midland Railway station at Buxton - now covered by a newish road - and which had no direct access into the current (ex-LNWR) Buxton station. A reversal near Buxton signal box is necessary to get between the ex-MR line & the current Buxton station. No easy solution exists to this problem, because the (LNW) viaduct on the former Uttoxeter line prevents easy construction of a direct link from Buxton station to the MR line towards Peak Forest / Millers Dale.
The best use for the line would probably be a fast service from Manchester, calling at Stockport, Chapel-en-le-Frith Central, Bakewell, Matlock, Matlock Bath then Derby, with trains continuing alternately to Leicester / Nottingham. There would be connections at Matlock with the existing Matlock/Derby trains. I doubt that any other of the former stations between Chapel & Matlock are worth reopening - the local populations are too low to justify the cost.
It would also be necessary to buy out Peak Rail - possibly by paying it to re-locate somewhere else nearby (e.g. part of Buxton/Ashbourne/Uttoxeter line).
If you look at google maps:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2604484,-1.9104143,236m/data=!3m1!1e3
The trackbed of the old Midland Railway branch into Buxton isn't obstructed by anything of note. It would be relatively easy to build the line to within a gnats crotchet of the existing station. True, trains wouldn't be able to reverse from one line to the other, but people could easily change trains between the two (although the majority would be travelling to and from Buxton itself).
With regard to buying out Peak Rail, isn't this the case with any land owner occupying the track bed ?
Yes, and this includes both the land round Haddon Hall where the trackbed no longer exists, but more pressingly the Monsal Train - owned I think by the Peak Park, who I very much doubt would sell up, and compulsory purchase would be very politically difficult, never mind the numerous other businesses that rely on the Monsal Trail. I still think the idea is a practical non-starter
Well, it can't be beyond the wit of man to devise some sort of alternative trail through the Peak district.
I remember seeing an article in one of the railway magazines on Sustrans when they first began converting trackbeds to cycleways. They specifically said that they would not stand in the way of any rail reopenings.
I don't know why it is assumed the Peak Park [Planning Board] would obstruct any rail reinstatement. They have a history of supporting public transport, a desire to minimise traffic overall and congestion and (like Sustrans) have preserved a through railway route which could be used for rail again.
The So-called "Friends" of the Peak District would probably oppose it on principle but I would think that a way could be found. You could have dynamic loops in between the tunnels if you wanted to preserve the foot/cycle paths through them, the preserved railways might have to be bought out (or just compulsory purchased) or single track could run alongside them too...
Airdrie to Bathgate showed that a cycle path can be maintained after a full double track railway is reinstated - but without the tunnel problem, I admit.
The So-called "Friends" of the Peak District would probably oppose it on principle but I would think that a way could be found. You could have dynamic loops in between the tunnels if you wanted to preserve the foot/cycle paths through them, the preserved railways might have to be bought out (or just compulsory purchased) or single track could run alongside them too...
Airdrie to Bathgate showed that a cycle path can be maintained after a full double track railway is reinstated - but without the tunnel problem, I admit.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Buxton already has passenger service to Manchester from where you can reach a large variety of destinations. Very few people who live in Buxton either work or shop in Derby so why bother with all the considerable expense?
Buxton is at the end of a long and winding branch which is difficult and time consuming to get to from the South. Plus, this proposal is not all about Buxton.
And not forgetting that the tunnel sections are already bypassed from before the tunnels were re-opened to the public.
Last edited:
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,602
A promise they have spectacularly reneged on, on several occasions.
They should be reminded of their founding principles and held to them.
Well...kinda. These bypasses were neither accessible nor cyclable, so don't really count as an alternative to a flat, smooth, unobstructed tunnel. These bypasses could be improved, but it wouldn't be a very popular move
So, to summarise:
Liverpool - Norwich would save x minutes running this way, but would no longer serve Sheffield (or Chesterfield) but could serve Derby.
Liverpool - Sheffield would fall to 1tph
An extra Manchester - Sheffield to maintain that frequency
An extra Sheffield - Nottingham - through passengers change at Nottingham
A Buxton - Derby stopper (perhaps connecting in some way at Millers Dale)
This would cost £ y million in capital and £ z million annually
Worth it?
Liverpool - Norwich would save x minutes running this way, but would no longer serve Sheffield (or Chesterfield) but could serve Derby.
Liverpool - Sheffield would fall to 1tph
An extra Manchester - Sheffield to maintain that frequency
An extra Sheffield - Nottingham - through passengers change at Nottingham
A Buxton - Derby stopper (perhaps connecting in some way at Millers Dale)
This would cost £ y million in capital and £ z million annually
Worth it?
Exactly... so "you could have dynamic loops in between the tunnels if you wanted to preserve the foot/cycle paths through them" which I thought was used as a euphemism for "double track - except for single track lengths in awkward places."
If people worry about the cost and reliability of a set of points at the beginning and end of each, then use gauntletted track with the signalling pretending it's single.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
As a regular user of the Monsal Trail, on foot and by bicycle, this is all starting to sound rather complicated!
I really struggle with the idea of sharing tunnels between a fairly high speed single track with diesel trains passing walkers, equestrians, wheelchair users and cyclists being acceptable.
Does everybody appreciate that Severn Trent Water has recently put a main of some kind along the formations, including at one side of the tunnels?
Then there is all the freight traffic around Peak Forest that in various ways has to shunt about on what used to be the main line.
Then there is the awkward bit between Bakewell and Rowsley, past Haddon Hall, that has defied even being turned into a footpath, let alone a re-opened railway.
No doubt that this was a fantastic line when it was open but it has 'gone' a very long way since.
I really struggle with the idea of sharing tunnels between a fairly high speed single track with diesel trains passing walkers, equestrians, wheelchair users and cyclists being acceptable.
Does everybody appreciate that Severn Trent Water has recently put a main of some kind along the formations, including at one side of the tunnels?
Then there is all the freight traffic around Peak Forest that in various ways has to shunt about on what used to be the main line.
Then there is the awkward bit between Bakewell and Rowsley, past Haddon Hall, that has defied even being turned into a footpath, let alone a re-opened railway.
No doubt that this was a fantastic line when it was open but it has 'gone' a very long way since.
Perhaps the fact that the water main is at one side of the tunnels hints at the Peak Park's long term plans?
Would you have rather the land had been sold off piecemeal to lots of local farmers and developers? I don't believe Sustrans would stand in the way of any serious transport scheme (which should be able to afford to build a parallel replacement trail anyway), but I can understand their reluctance to reliquish a popular leisure facility in the case of a small speculative heritage railway project in every case. Of course, apart from through tunnels perhaps, a low speed single track heritage operation is more suitable to coexist with a path on a former double track alignment.
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 790
Manchester - Nottingham could be much faster than that if the Stoke - Derby 70mph line was upgraded - or even if you used the existing infrastructure and ran one train an hour non stop between Stoke and Derby. Current times on this route are:
- Manchester - Stoke - 39 minutes
- Stoke to Derby - 53 minutes - (It takes this long because it stops at a number of small stations)
- Derby - Nottingham - 21 minutes
These add up to 1 hour 53 minutes, but there are lots of opportunities to shave a lot of time off this.
As there is only one train per hour in each direction between Derby and Stoke, it should be possible to find an additional path for an express.
Hence my proposal for a new Manchester - Stoke - Derby - Nottingham express service. It would cost a fraction of the price of re-opening Matlock to Buxton.
Last edited:
The pathing issue is Stoke - Manchester, not Stoke - Derby!
Greybeard33
Established Member
And indeed that pathing issue applies to any express Manchester to Nottingham via Stockport service bypassing Sheffield, whether via Stoke, via the Hope Valley and the Dore South Curve, or via Bakewell and Matlock. The existing EMT path between Piccadilly and Stockport would still be needed for a replacement Sheffield service.
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 790
Although I'm not familiar with the pathing constraints between Stockport and Piccadily, there are a number of possible solutions that should be considered before writing off the idea.
1. one path may be freed up once HS2 is built.
2. if EMT ran this new Nottingham - Derby - Stoke - Manchester express service, could they join and split with the Sheffield train at Stockport, thereby only using one path into Manchester?
3. If XC ran this new service, could they join and split with one of their existing services at Stoke, thereby using an existing path between Stoke and Manchester for an 8 or 10 coach train instead of the existing 4 or 5 coach single unit.
4. If Northern ran this new service, they could use it as an extension of one of their existing services to Stoke...or perhaps even joining with one of their slow stopping services at Stockport, if there was a path between Stoke and Stockport.
Options 2-4 would rely on compatible rolling stock being available, but still much cheaper than trying to re-open Matlock to Buxton.
One of the original Northern Hub ideas was for the extra Sheffield services to be routed non-stop via Marple, rather than Stockport. Although that does require finding a path to/through Victoria instead.
- Status