Restoration of the Peak Line

[zwk500]

Could the heritage line ever (economically?) be extended from Matlock through to somewhere in the near vicinity of Bakewell once again?

Possibly, but it'd be very much it's own attraction and not a route for people to get into the peaks.

 

[MarkyT]

Could the current heritage line ever (economically?) be extended from Matlock through to somewhere in the near vicinity of Bakewell once again?

Possibly, but it'd be very much it's own attraction and not a route for people to get into the peaks.

I'd suggest branching off the old alignment soon after the north portal of Haddon Hall tunnel, dropping down into the Bakewell showground area for a new terminus site close to the town centre, with no impact on the Monsal trail at all.

 

[A0wen]

Could the current heritage line ever (economically?) be extended from Matlock through to somewhere in the near vicinity of Bakewell once again?

Their big issue is the missing bridge over the A6 at Rowsley - and the road's been realigned since the bridge was removed. That's not going to be either easy or cheap.

Some pictures on this site http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/rowsley/

I'm sure I read somewhere that the current owners of Haddon Hall - which the railway runs underneath - aren't supportive either.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Their big issue is the missing bridge over the A6 at Rowsley - and the road's been realigned since the bridge was removed. That's not going to be either easy or cheap.

Thanks for clarifying. That somewhat kiboshes things!

 

[A0wen]

I'd suggest branching off the old alignment soon after the north portal of Haddon Hall tunnel, dropping down into the Bakewell showground area for a new terminus site close to the town centre, with no impact on the Monsal trail at all.

Not sure that'll be any cheaper - a new alignment across farmland which will have to be purchased at market prices.

I suspect the Rowsley Bridge is going to prevent Peak Rail from ever extending further north.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would the referred-to line to Buxton from Millers Dale take the line that passed through the now-closed Blackwell Mill Halt railway station?

 

[A0wen]

Would the referred-to line to Buxton from Millers Dale take the line that passed through the now-closed Blackwell Mill Halt railway station?

Looking at where that was sited from this page http://disused-stations.org.uk/b/blackwell_mill/index.shtml

I would say yes.

 

[D365]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the current owners of Haddon Hall - which the railway runs underneath - aren't supportive either.

History repeats itself.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the current owners of Haddon Hall - which the railway runs underneath - aren't supportive either.

The Duke of Rutland wasn't particularly enthusiastic about a view of the railway from his property at the time of construction either, hence the proposal for a tunnel under the Haddon Hall estate, much of which was constructed using the cut and cover technique. The tunnel probably wouldn't have been required at all otherwise.

 

[Killingworth]

I'd been saving my energy and not writing about this well intentioned project as it's all been said many times before, but.....

The details have all been restated again above. Closed in 1968. Peak Rail founded 1975 to reopen. After much struggling they have reopened from Matlock to Rowsley, defeated by the awkward A6 bridge so unable to reach Bakewell.

Almost 40 years ago I optimistically bought shares, money down the drain, but it helped fund rebuilding a bridge out of Buxton that remains unused.

I've walked the route from Ambergate to Buxton within the last 5 years. Yes, it was a double track mainline railway but it is not straight and has gradients and tunnels. Anyone imagining passenger trains at 100 mph is dreaming. The cost of reinstating the doubletrack from Ambergate to Matlock alone would be enormous, it's been unused for too long.

The length of the various necessary planning processes to get such a project off the ground would be long, and the lack of finance would make it longer. There would be much local opposition - although there is a marmite element to it! If it were built and operational now the quarries would be wanting to move jumbo trains of 40+ wagons down the route, not easy to reconcile with a tourist driven economy. The quarry operators are broadly supportive and may be prepared to offer modest support. However the likely timescales to achieve this reopening are so long that quarrying itself may have become unwelcome in the Peak before a train could run.

The currently progressing far more modest work on the Hope Valley line started in planning by Railtrack in the late 1990s (it was on the wall of their Manchester offices about that time) and was in their Strategic Plan of 2002 to redouble at Dore in 2003-4. It will be done in 2023-4 after many pauses and redrafts, with work added in and subsequently taken out.

That project won't now achieve all it originally set out to achieve because of further bottlenecks through Sheffield, Hazel Grove, Stockport and Manchester - some of which would also impact on the Peaks and Dales proposals. Resolving them would bring quicker relief than throwing the money at this proposal - although quick is probably the wrong word. More effective early relief might be a better way of putting it.

 

[rapmastaj]

Far from the most idiotic - the Dumfries-Stranraer proposal hits this for six

Yeah, in terms of ridiculous financial unviability combined with low demand you're right.

But just imagine a world where somehow, believe it or not, it was possible to restore Dumfries - Stranraer. It would have a positive effect (yes limited, but still positive) by improving the public transport connectivity of some small settlements in a remote region of Scotland.

By contrast, if the Peak line was restored, the impact would actually be negative. It would impact people's physical and mental health by discouraging walking and cycling on a popular existing route, and it would damage the ecology of a series of valuable nature reserves.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But just imagine a world where somehow, believe it or not, it was possible to restore Dumfries - Stranraer. It would have a positive effect (yes limited, but still positive) by improving the public transport connectivity of some small settlements in a remote region of Scotland.

Such as the settlements once served by the Wick and Lybster Light Railway

 

[yorksrob]

In spite of what the naysayers say (and they seem to be multiplying on here for some reason) this is the most sensible of the reopening proposals.

However rather than concentrating on just one market, it needs to embrace all the various traffic flows that will benefit - local residents, tourists and walkers, better inter-regional services between the North West and Midlands and relieving the Hope valley of its freight pressures.

Yeah, in terms of ridiculous financial unviability combined with low demand you're right.

But just imagine a world where somehow, believe it or not, it was possible to restore Dumfries - Stranraer. It would have a positive effect (yes limited, but still positive) by improving the public transport connectivity of some small settlements in a remote region of Scotland.

By contrast, if the Peak line was restored, the impact would actually be negative. It would impact people's physical and mental health by discouraging walking and cycling on a popular existing route, and it would damage the ecology of a series of valuable nature reserves.

Dumfries serves nowhere near the sort of population or tourist market that this route would serve.

If people want to walk or cycle, they will find a way to walk and cycle - just look at the Settle and Carlisle line where they haven't had to pave over the line to get people to walk and cycle - people use it to get to their place of walking or cycling.

In terms of ecological impact, as with Dumfries, both routes have previously been excavated and disturbed by construction, so the impact of both would be minimal - far less than new construction projects such as HS2 and the many road schemes going ahead.

 

[furnessvale]

In spite of what the naysayers say (and they seem to be multiplying on here for some reason) this is the most sensible of the reopening proposals.

However rather than concentrating on just one market, it needs to embrace all the various traffic flows that will benefit - local residents, tourists and walkers, better inter-regional services between the North West and Midlands and relieving the Hope valley of its freight pressures.

That is exactly what MEMRAP proposals seek to do, including the vast amount of products from the quarries heading south, currently moved by road due to the convoluted routes trains to the south have to take..

 

[Dr Hoo]

That is exactly what MEMRAP proposals seek to do, including the vast amount of products from the quarries heading south, currently moved by road due to the convoluted routes trains to the south have to take..

Can you advise what these ‘vast amounts’ are?

As a regular user of the A6 in Derbyshire it isn’t that obvious to me that there are huge numbers of bulk HGVs from the Buxton area quarries heading through Matlock, etc.

 

[A0wen]

That is exactly what MEMRAP proposals seek to do, including the vast amount of products from the quarries heading south, currently moved by road due to the convoluted routes trains to the south have to take..

There is no 2 track railway which has been able to effectively handle the competing demands of medium / long distance high speed services, local stopping services and long, reasonably slow heavy freight services.

MEMRAPs proposals fail massively because of this - they are ignoring a few basic facts. Their campaign is entirely predicated on "there used to be a railway here, we don't think it should have closed, ergo it must be reopened following the same route" - if there is genuine demand for a new line from the Buxton area through the Peak District national park, then why not work out what the traffic flows are, which are most important and identify a new route which is fit for purpose - unlike a Victorian alignment, which as ever with the Midland is sub optimal due to its gradients and curves which are far from ideal.

Their proposals also overlook the fact that once these "new flows" get south of Ambergate, they then need to go somewhere else, on lines which already have most of their capacity spoken for - so again, it really doesn't solve any problems and if anything creates more.

In spite of what the naysayers say (and they seem to be multiplying on here for some reason) this is the most sensible of the reopening proposals.

Bit in bold - it really isn't.

It's somewhere in the area of sensibility of reopening the S&D or GCR.

Sensible are lines which actually solve problems and might even cover their costs from a revenue side and not create a bunch of problems elsewhere - this fails on all of those.

Sensible reopenings might be things like Leicester - Burton, Isle of Grain, possibly Aylesbury - Calvert to enable Aylesbury - Milton Keynes.

 

[The Planner]

Sounds like they are taking this in isolation and not considering the interdependencies then. As noted, its all very well saying "all the freight can use it!" but where is it going to and from, same goes for passenger flows. Does it abstract from existing routes, what does it release, what do you need to do on existing routes (where are all the extra trains fitting in at Chinley etc...)

 

[rapmastaj]

In spite of what the naysayers say (and they seem to be multiplying on here for some reason) this is the most sensible of the reopening proposals.

However rather than concentrating on just one market, it needs to embrace all the various traffic flows that will benefit - local residents, tourists and walkers, better inter-regional services between the North West and Midlands and relieving the Hope valley of its freight pressures.



Dumfries serves nowhere near the sort of population or tourist market that this route would serve.

If people want to walk or cycle, they will find a way to walk and cycle - just look at the Settle and Carlisle line where they haven't had to pave over the line to get people to walk and cycle - people use it to get to their place of walking or cycling.

In terms of ecological impact, as with Dumfries, both routes have previously been excavated and disturbed by construction, so the impact of both would be minimal - far less than new construction projects such as HS2 and the many road schemes going ahead.

Normally I am very much in favour of rail restorations as a vital tool to support modal shift away from private cars. In fact, I'd probably even support a simple extension from Matlock as far as Bakewell if that was a viable prospect. I just can't get any enthusiasm for this particular scheme. The Monsal Trail is a place I've visited many times and I think putting a railway there would do more harm than good.

 

[yorksrob]

There is no 2 track railway which has been able to effectively handle the competing demands of medium / long distance high speed services, local stopping services and long, reasonably slow heavy freight services.

MEMRAPs proposals fail massively because of this - they are ignoring a few basic facts. Their campaign is entirely predicated on "there used to be a railway here, we don't think it should have closed, ergo it must be reopened following the same route" - if there is genuine demand for a new line from the Buxton area through the Peak District national park, then why not work out what the traffic flows are, which are most important and identify a new route which is fit for purpose - unlike a Victorian alignment, which as ever with the Midland is sub optimal due to its gradients and curves which are far from ideal.

Their proposals also overlook the fact that once these "new flows" get south of Ambergate, they then need to go somewhere else, on lines which already have most of their capacity spoken for - so again, it really doesn't solve any problems and if anything creates more.



Bit in bold - it really isn't.

It's somewhere in the area of sensibility of reopening the S&D or GCR.

Sensible are lines which actually solve problems and might even cover their costs from a revenue side and not create a bunch of problems elsewhere - this fails on all of those.

Sensible reopenings might be things like Leicester - Burton, Isle of Grain, possibly Aylesbury - Calvert to enable Aylesbury - Milton Keynes.

You destroy your own argument in your first sentence:

There is no 2 track railway which has been able to effectively handle the competing demands of medium / long distance high speed services

Two track railways often have to juggle competing traffic flows - freight, fast and stopping passenger trains etc. Just look at the Hope Valley which is the text book case of this.

However two track railways manage this juggling act so much better when there are alternative routes for the different trains to take, which is what the MML through Bakewell would do.

Normally I am very much in favour of rail restorations as a vital tool to support modal shift away from private cars. In fact, I'd probably even support a simple extension from Matlock as far as Bakewell if that was a viable prospect. I just can't get any enthusiasm for this particular scheme. The Monsal Trail is a place I've visited many times and I think putting a railway there would do more harm than good.

I think that if this railway hadn't been closed, no one in their right mind would think of closing it. It would be too important to close.

If it were open, it would enable people to visit places throughout the Peak District.

That is exactly what MEMRAP proposals seek to do, including the vast amount of products from the quarries heading south, currently moved by road due to the convoluted routes trains to the south have to take..

It's good that they're taking that approach in that case.

 

[rapmastaj]

I think that if this railway hadn't been closed, no one in their right mind would think of closing it. It would be too important to close.

If it were open, it would enable people to visit places throughout the Peak District.

You're probably right. But given that it did close and took on new uses, we are where we are.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Normally I am very much in favour of rail restorations as a vital tool to support modal shift away from private cars.

It might just be me at the old age of 78, but I cannot recall a time when there were so many media adverts for "cars of the future"

 

[rapmastaj]

It might just be me at the old age of 78, but I cannot recall a time when there were so many media adverts for "cars of the future"

And all driving on totally empty streets

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And all driving on totally empty streets

A credit to a rolled-out new roadbuilding future, especially on the line of defunct railways.....

 

[A0wen]

You destroy your own argument in your first sentence:

Two track railways often have to juggle competing traffic flows - freight, fast and stopping passenger trains etc. Just look at the Hope Valley which is the text book case of this.

However two track railways manage this juggling act so much better when there are alternative routes for the different trains to take, which is what the MML through Bakewell would do.

No - my argument hasn't been "destroyed" - I'm stating a basic fact which many others point out, but some people seem incapable of comprehending as you've just demonstrated.

Those competing demands mean compromises - which means a loss of efficiency or effectiveness.

 

[yorksrob]

No - my argument hasn't been "destroyed" - I'm stating a basic fact which many others point out, but some people seem incapable of comprehending as you've just demonstrated.

Those competing demands mean compromises - which means a loss of efficiency or effectiveness.

You have destroyed your argument because you can't remove or lessen those inefficiencies by not having the railway in the first place.

Reinstating the MML through Bakewell would reduce those inefficiencies on the surrounding network - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is mainly two track railway.

It might just be me at the old age of 78, but I cannot recall a time when there were so many media adverts for "cars of the future"

And all driving on totally empty streets

And all using incredibly pretentious, pompous advertising.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And all using incredibly pretentious, pompous advertising.

That is what advertising agencies thrive upon and leads to a specific thread on this website where annoying TV adverts make for good posting numbers.

 

[A0wen]

You have destroyed your argument because you can't remove or lessen those inefficiencies by not having the railway in the first place.

Reinstating the MML through Bakewell would reduce those inefficiencies on the surrounding network - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is mainly two track railway.

All you do is increase the inefficiencies and create pinch points in different places. You seem unable to comprehend why that's a problem.

And if Bakewell (popn 4,000) with limited demand for travel to Derby or Buxton is your best justification for this line, then you really don't have a justification.

Manchester - Derby can be done just as quickly via Stoke with 1 change. Leicester - Manchester doesn't really have any demand as the Project Rio services demonstrated.

So then you're left with freight. Hope Valley upgrades can address some of it. And if a new freight line is needed, the find a decent formation, not a rehash of a suboptimal Victorian one with gradients, curves which goes through tourist areas.

 

[The Planner]

You have destroyed your argument because you can't remove or lessen those inefficiencies by not having the railway in the first place.

Reinstating the MML through Bakewell would reduce those inefficiencies on the surrounding network - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is mainly two track railway.

How? as I noted earlier, its all very well taking it in isolation, but do all the extra trains fit at either end, where are they going etc.. how does this make those parts of the railway more efficient?

 

[zwk500]

Reinstating the MML through Bakewell would reduce those inefficiencies on the surrounding network - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is mainly two track railway.

Can you put some numbers on the services you anticipate on the Hope Valley and the High Peak routes after reinstatement? It's all very well declaring that it will reduce the inefficiencies, but skilled people have looked at this multiple times and said it wouldn't, so obviously it's not readily apparent and they've missed something that you've seen.

 

[Killingworth]

I think that if this railway hadn't been closed, no one in their right mind would think of closing it. It would be too important to close.

If it were open, it would enable people to visit places throughout the Peak District.

I'd totally agree, and when Peak Rail was formed it wasn't unreasonable to consider getting it restored but in 50 years the world has moved on. Not the least of that movement is the massive loads of limestone and cement being removed in ever longer trains.

Jumbo trains are now a routine feature, effectively two trains linked together to use only one path for the greater part of their routes, see explanation from Railfreight.com; https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2022/05/03/freightliner-jumbo-trains-anniversary/?gdpr=accept

Currently these go westbound to the WCML requiring a seemingly ridiculous journey north to Guide Bridge before heading south. That's a subject for another thread, but easing that could be a lot easier to achieve than the MEMRAP proposals (see an OS map for confirmation). Looking at RTT for the last week most freight paths to the west (then either south or north) went unused so extra capacity seems to be available.

Going east (then either north or south) it's a similar story, more unused paths than actually taken up so capacity is available. For the quarry operators that's essential to allow flexibility to meet contracts. There are days when it can be difficult to do that but the issues are as likely to be near the destination as in the Peak District - and supply of and space for empty wagons is another issue. MEMRAP: would only marginally help with these

Regarding road transport for these loads, yes, they do occur, quite a lot of them. I see cement coming out of the Hope Valley in smaller loads to more specific smaller sites than the long train loads to major distribution depots for onward local deliveries. The same goes for smaller quarries that aren't rail linked at all. However those unfamiliar with the scale of some of these Peak District operations might be interested to see this train spotters video taken at Peak Forest over a 2 hour spell last month. Imagine those trains rumbling through places like Bakewell, Millers Dale, Bakewell, Darley Dale, Matlock and Cromford. More tourists welcome, but not these. The opposition to any reopening hasn't got started. See;