A decision taken 50 years ago isn't really relevant to the situation today, which is why the case needs to be reinvestigated.As recently as ten years ago, the County investigated the value of local trains along the route, so there is obviously an interest.
The DCC 2004 report prepared by Scott Wilson can be found here.
https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/derby-mancester-rail_main_report_full_tcm44-21359.pdf
Prepared in accordance with the somewhat restrictive rail investment criteria at that that time the report did not consider the broader context of rengineering services in North West and North Derbyshire.
I wrote to them at the time suggesting they were possibly not asking the correct questions and hence not getting the right answers. I received a polite reply disagreeing with my suggestion.
"The documentation that has been published appears to dwell upon the mechanical reinstatement of the rail infrastructure and upon the micro impact upon the residents of the Matlock Buxton corridor. I would like to suggest the promoters also consider the following points.
• In addition to the Matlock Buxton corridor the scheme should examine the implications for Buxton as a town and the Buxton to Manchester corridor. Apart from the A6 Chapel bypass no significant improvement has been made to this corridor in the last thirty years. Buxton has declined as the mineral extraction industry has restructured and light automotive-based industries have migrated overseas. Agriculture is destined to decline in the light of European Union initiatives. It is therefore necessary for Buxton to move towards knowledge based “sunrise” businesses. A driver for this will be the establishment of the University of Derby campus in the town. However for this to succeed there is a need for the regeneration of communications from Buxton not just to the East Midlands or North West but also to London and the South East. The present railway service to Buxton is an amalgam of the two competing railway companies, the L&NWR and the Midland and the Beeching plan. The plan to resite the station at Buxton is excellent. I assume that this will be adjacent to existing Bridge Street car park. Having established this new station the opportunity should be taken to create services that:
o Run from Manchester to Saint Pancras via Stockport, Buxton, Matlock, Derby and Leicester.
o Recast the Buxton Manchester services to incorporate fast or semi fast trains thereby reducing the current journey time from Buxton to Stockport and Manchester thereby providing an incentive switch transport modes
o Recast services from Manchester such that they originate at Manchester Piccadilly. This would mitigate existing pressure on the Piccadilly, Oxford Road Windsor link section and improve the robustness of the timetable to Buxton and Matlock.
o Recast services on the Midland Mainline Services whereby instead of proceeding from Derby to Sheffield fast services from London would be diverted to Manchester. The SRA “Project Rio” service from Manchester to Saint Pancras has opened up the prospect of trains running direct from Chesterfield to Leicester via Toton. Diversion of these trains from Manchester to Sheffield could reduce the journey times from Sheffield and Chesterfield, another key part of Derbyshire, to the capital. An augmented Virgin Cross Country or Central Trains service could safeguard the interests of passengers travelling from Derby to Chesterfield and Sheffield.
o The essence of these suggestions is that the Matlock to Buxton reopening should be seen not only as an incremental piece of Derbyshire’s infrastructure but should fit into a wider strategy rail strategy and a wider economic development strategy. This predicates an infrastructure requirement that allows for inter regional services to be operated over the line together with regional semi fast, local and freight services. This would entail an infrastructure concept framed around “Voyager and Meridian” train types rather than a minimal Sprinter based approach
• With regard to freight I was somewhat surprised by the comment that it was improbable that freight services other than mineral trains would run over the line. I would imagine it is regarded as part of the core vision by the promoters that the mineral extraction industries of the Peak should be enabled economically but with the minimum of adverse environmental impact. This criterion would shape the infrastructure envelope by dictating maximum axle loads and probably loading gauge. The Freight Forum recognises that pathing for freight trains upon the west and east coast main lines is a problem – one that is destined to become more complex with the introduction of the dedicated fast train “Pendolino” structure on the West Coast Main Line. There is a need for dependable freight routing from the southeast to the northwest. The SRA recently reported that south of Bedford the line was congested as a result of the operation of Thames Link and MML trains. However north of Bedford the infrastructure or infrastructure base exists for the segregation of freight and passenger services until Glendon Junction just south of Leicester or Syston Junction if routed via Corby. Existing freight flows on the Midland Main Line include mineral traffic from Mountsorrel, MGR coal traffic to the Trent power stations, fuel and palletised rubbish containers from Cricklewood. The reopened line would make an ideal national diversionary route and provide extra capacity.
• The mixed freight passenger railway would however have infrastructure implications in that it may be necessary to have passing loops at for example, Millers Dale, Rowsley and Ambergate / Duffield. It might also be desirable to segregate traffic flows from Millers Dale junction such that freight is routed via Chinley with passenger trains via Buxton. Such segregation would enable operational flexibility in tackling the 1 in 90 gradient from Millers Dale to Peak Forest summit. The passing loops if constructed as centre-avoiding lines at Millers Dale and at a Rowsley station re-sited at Northwood this would facilitate the flexibility of a mixed speed passenger service. The segregation of service at the north end of the route would minimise disruption to the reduced infrastructure that now exists through the Hope Valley and from Chinley North through to New Mills South.
• I would question the economic value of reopening the section from Millers Dale junction to Chinley North for Matlock to Manchester fast passenger traffic and the value of reopening Chapel Central station if this simply duplicates rail provision for the town. There might however be a case to be made for the extension of existing Manchester Piccadilly to New Mills Central services to Chapel Central via Chinley. This would allow the closure of the less centrally situated Chapel South Station and enhance the line speed and operational robustness of the Stockport Buxton Matlock services. A case for similar synergies could also be made for the closure of New Mills Newtown and Furness Vale stations if a new parkway station were to be built on the former Midland main line at New Mills South junction (close to any extension of the A6 by pass routes). It is also possible to envisage the provision of a Buxton - Sheffield (Meadowhall) local service via Chapel Central and the Hope Valley. This could stimulate and meet the need to connect Buxton and Sheffield in place of difficult road links and open up access to Yorkshire and the northeast for Buxton residents in addition to providing weekend and seasonal access for tourists to the Peak".
I do appreciate that with the MML electrification proposals and the Northern hub that things have changed in the interim but I still feel that a Trans Peak route linking the major centres of population there would be a good idea.
