Petition to commission new study into re-opening Matlock to Buxton

[RichmondCommu]

The section of freight only line from Buxton to the junction is relatively short anyway and would only have Buxton stoppers on it, so probably wouldn't need a lot of work. There would be signalling work required at the junction any way to get the main line up and running, so you might as well pay the extra to get the benefit and have a service that serves the main commerce centre as well.

Back in the summer of 1987 Peak Rail sponsored a Dales Rail type service running from Edale to a short lived unstaffed station called Chee Dale Halt. I can't remember the exact location but it was very close to Blackwell Mill. Being a keen walker and rail enthusiast (although lapsed at the time) I used the service on two separate occasions and it was fairly well populated. However the service was discontinued at the end of the summer (September 1987) because it was deemed that the signalling wasn't up to scratch for passenger services. Now if BR / Peak Rail didn't think it was worth spending the money to fund the improvements, with today's seemingly inflated costs what has changed?

Not only that but every single signal and point installation seems to cost a fortune nowadays. Now I'm in no position to comment on that but nevertheless every single bit of infrastructure expenditure would have to be costed and justified. Given that Buxton already has passenger services I don't think the cost could be justified.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looking at Google Sat view, the former Midland branch platform at Buxton still appears to be in situ. I think this was last used when Peak Rail had a presence there, also the former Buxton Water buildings in the view have now been demolished, so that may simplify reinstatement.

Back in the mid 1980's, I visited the Peak Rail base at Buxton with my Dad. At that stage they were limited to giving brake van rides around the old station yard because of a missing bridge past the station throat. I suspect that there is still a missing bridge but I would love to be proved wrong.

However you do make a very good point and indeed something that I had forgotten. As things stand if services did indeed start running from Derby directly to Buxton they would of course have to reverse / run around just as the freight services from Great Rocks to Briggs Sidings currently have to do.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Back in the summer of 1987 Peak Rail sponsored a Dales Rail type service running from Edale to a short lived unstaffed station called Chee Dale Halt. I can't remember the exact location but it was very close to Blackwell Mill. Being a keen walker and rail enthusiast (although lapsed at the time) I used the service on two separate occasions and it was fairly well populated. However the service was discontinued at the end of the summer (September 1987) because it was deemed that the signalling wasn't up to scratch for passenger services. Now if BR / Peak Rail didn't think it was worth spending the money to fund the improvements, with today's seemingly inflated costs what has changed?

Not only that but every single signal and point installation seems to cost a fortune nowadays. Now I'm in no position to comment on that but nevertheless every single bit of infrastructure expenditure would have to be costed and justified. Given that Buxton already has passenger services I don't think the cost could be justified.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Back in the mid 1980's, I visited the Peak Rail base at Buxton with my Dad. At that stage they were limited to giving brake van rides around the old station yard because of a missing bridge past the station throat. I suspect that there is still a missing bridge but I would love to be proved wrong.

However you do make a very good point and indeed something that I had forgotten. As things stand if services did indeed start running from Derby directly to Buxton they would of course have to reverse / run around just as the freight services from Great Rocks to Briggs Sidings currently have to do.

Very interestingly, if the bridge in question is the one that spans Charles Street it does very much look like a new deck was installed at some point. Looking on street view the bridge manufacturers name (Amber Valley Engineering Ltd) is visible. This does appear to be at the throat of the former station.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Very interestingly, if the bridge in question is the one that spans Charles Street it does very much look like a new deck was installed at some point. Looking on street view the bridge manufacturers name (Amber Valley Engineering Ltd) is visible. This does appear to be at the throat of the former station.

Yes that's the bridge! That can't have been cheap and yet as far as I know Peak Rail never used it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Back in the summer of 1987 Peak Rail sponsored a Dales Rail type service running from Edale to a short lived unstaffed station called Chee Dale Halt. I can't remember the exact location but it was very close to Blackwell Mill. Being a keen walker and rail enthusiast (although lapsed at the time) I used the service on two separate occasions and it was fairly well populated. However the service was discontinued at the end of the summer (September 1987) because it was deemed that the signalling wasn't up to scratch for passenger services.

Chee Dale Halt was opened by British Rail on 5th July 1987 for the type of services that you so describe, but was closed on 13th September 1987.

The platform remained in situ until the 1990's when it was dismantled and used by Peak Rail as part of their Matlock Riverside station.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Yes that's the bridge! That can't have been cheap and yet as far as I know Peak Rail never used it.

Indeed, looks as though it was installed but track was never put in place, double track deck too!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Chee Dale Halt was opened by British Rail on 5th July 1987 for the type of services that you so describe, but was closed on 13th September 1987.

The platform remained in situ until the 1990's when it was dismantled and used by Peak Rail as part of their Matlock Riverside station.

Yes that's right. And indeed Matlock Riverside has I think now been replaced since the other platform was reopened at the original Midland Railway station at Matlock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, looks as though it was installed but track was never put in place, double track deck too!

That was a silly amount of money to spend for something that they have effectively written off!

 

[tocguard]

As I try to keep saying, the railway - rightly or wrongly - abandoned this route ages ago. It now provides a traffic-free environment for walkers, cyclists and equestrians. A lot of money has been spent for their benefit. It is not acceptable to say that they can use the Tissington and High Peak trails instead as the landscape is different. It will not happen.

You mean the Peak Park have successfully wasted lots of taxpayer's money to convert this route into a cycle track when everyone locally knows they have always seemingly been strongly opposed to the idea of the reinstatement of the railway. This was a good opportunity for them to throw a spanner in the works and jeopardise any future reopening.

Now, being a uk taxpayer, i am not happy my money has been spent in this way. As a local resident, i am not happy at what has happened. The trackbed was protected for the future reopening of the railway, not provision of a cycle track.

I am a keen cyclist as well as local resident who has an interest in this railway reopening. I respect the fact that this was and should still be a railway so in my opinion it is wrong to try and use it for another purpose while there is an ever increasing strong argument for its reinstatement. Also, i would rather use a well established trail for cycling, either the Ashbourne - Parsley Hay or Cromford - Parsley Hay sections which are not both not really anymore than 30 min away from this new cycle track. The Monsal trail as it is now known would not be my choice of a cycle route anyway, it is too busy with walkers, young and old, families, disabled, foreign groups, horse riders and other cyclists. It is very dangerous and congested in parts. The other 2 trails mentioned above are much quieter and safer. They are not used to the extent the Monsal trail is and this is purely the fact of the novelty factor, a combination of being new, close to Bakewell and the Peak Park advertising it well (on purpose) to try and prove money well spent.

 

[johnnychips]

X

You mean the Peak Park have successfully wasted lots of taxpayer's money to convert this route into a cycle track when everyone locally knows they have always seemingly been strongly opposed to the idea of the reinstatement of the railway. This was a good opportunity for them to throw a spanner in the works and jeopardise any future reopening.

Now, being a uk taxpayer, i am not happy my money has been spent in this way. As a local resident, i am not happy at what has happened. The trackbed was protected for the future reopening of the railway, not provision of a cycle track.

I am a keen cyclist as well as local resident who has an interest in this railway reopening. I respect the fact that this was and should still be a railway so in my opinion it is wrong to try and use it for another purpose while there is an ever increasing strong argument for its reinstatement. Also, i would rather use a well established trail for cycling, either the Ashbourne - Parsley Hay or Cromford - Parsley Hay sections which are not both not really anymore than 30 min away from this new cycle track. The Monsal trail as it is now known would not be my choice of a cycle route anyway, it is too busy with walkers, young and old, families, disabled, foreign groups, horse riders and other cyclists. .

If it is so busy surely it's money well spent, bringing people and money into the area. God forfend disabled groups and foreign visitors should enjoy an asset.

Who protected the trackbed with the intention it should be reopened as a railway? I'm genuinely interested as I always assumed the huge gates (now removed) on the tunnels were just to keep the curious out rather than actually protecting an asset.

 

[Robertj21a]

In which case what's the bus service like from Buxton to Hartington if Buxton is your base? And that's a genuine question although I suspect its pretty poor.

Roughly hourly, takes about 40 mins.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Roughly hourly, takes about 40 mins.

I'm amazed! We've seen buses pull into the square at Hartington but I didn't realise they were that frequent.

 

[tocguard]

X

If it is so busy surely it's money well spent, bringing people and money into the area. God forfend disabled groups and foreign visitors should enjoy an asset.

Who protected the trackbed with the intention it should be reopened as a railway? I'm genuinely interested as I always assumed the huge gates (now removed) on the tunnels were just to keep the curious out rather than actually protecting an asset.

I'm not saying certain user groups shouldn't be allowed to use it, I'm emphasising the fact that there is excessive use by ALL user groups which makes using the trail potentially dangerous in parts especially mixing young toddlers with horseriders, dogs too and speeding cyclists.

No you miss the point I'm making. There are many prefectly good well established trails already in the Derbyshire and Peak Park areas but there has never seamt to be as much of a push to get people to use them as on the Monsal trail. This is because for 1, the cost needs to look to be justified. The Peak Park is a corrupt authority acting to achieve what it's individual members want, there is much evidence of this, however this is a separate issue. If you are local to the area, i trust you already know about some of these issues. Anyway, the top and bottom of it is that they have always been against reopening so they have got lots of taxpayers money without much consultation and used it for this project. This now creates a bit of a problem for the prospect of reopening, which I'm sure was part of the plan. However, it doesn't stop there. The reason the Peak Park gave wanted it to look like a huge success is so that they can then press ahead again with an "extension" of this cycle way, South to Matlock. Again at huge cost to the taxpayer (when authorities are supposed to have no money) and major opposition by many, including Peak Rail, Darley Dale Town Council and Derbyshire County Council (in parts), yet I'm sure they will still go ahead with it anyway, as always.

Oh, the trackbed in the most part, with exception of what is now incorporated back into Haddon Estate is/was protected by Derbyshire County Council.

 

[ringi]

The Monsal trail tail is one of only two locations in the Peak Park area where it is possible for disabled people to hire accessible bikes etc. It is clearly also used by lots of none disabled people.

I fail to see how a train every hour at most (more likely every 2 or 3 hrs) can possibility be of greater value.

Just think of how good the bus services would be if even half the money that it would cost to reopen and operate the line was spend on an improved bus services!! Also think of the additional costs to the NHS if the current users of the tail take less exercise due to it being closed…

 

[yorksrob]

Not only that but every single signal and point installation seems to cost a fortune nowadays. Now I'm in no position to comment on that but nevertheless every single bit of infrastructure expenditure would have to be costed and justified. Given that Buxton already has passenger services I don't think the cost could be justified.

Well, it's true that Buxton does have a train service, but only Northwards and that's fairly circuitous.

Yes, the extra junction would cost, but the benefit would be much greater when compared with building a route that by-passes the main town in the area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You mean the Peak Park have successfully wasted lots of taxpayer's money to convert this route into a cycle track when everyone locally knows they have always seemingly been strongly opposed to the idea of the reinstatement of the railway. This was a good opportunity for them to throw a spanner in the works and jeopardise any future reopening.

If the National Parks are going to stand in the way of reopening important railway routes, they should have their responsibility for them removed.

Really, the railway shouldn't be considered "new" development at all.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I thought the reason the route was converted into a walking/cycle path was to preserve the formation for possible future reopening so I don't see the route being a walking/cycle path now should be a barrier to it's reopening espically as Derbyshire CC have plans to divert the path if reopnening takes place. Rail sevices along this corridor could benefit walkers if for example a day rover ticket could be purchased allowing walkers to use the railway to access various walks along the route then take the train from a differnt station back to the start.

IMO the same criteria used to assess reopening of East West rail should be applied to this route, local journies within the National Park are a side benefit to Inter-regional journies from Liverpool and Manchester to Derbyshire, Nottingham and Leicester.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Well, it's true that Buxton does have a train service, but only Northwards and that's fairly circuitous.

Yes, the extra junction would cost, but the benefit would be much greater when compared with building a route that by-passes the main town in the area.

Unless you are expecting the driver to change ends in the yard north of Buxton (which of course he could easily do) you are then in the position of having to maintain two stations in a small town in a rural area. I don't think the demand would justify a second station and the associated infrastructure costs. If you were travelling from London I wonder whether it would be quicker to travel to Stockport and then catch a train south to Buxton?

In all fairness I think the only realistic justification for reopening route would be as a through route. Buxton is indeed the main town in the area but that isn't saying much given the very rural nature of the area. For whats it worth my neighbour is a Domino's franchisee who was offered the store that they have built on Buxton. He turned it down because he didn't think there would be sufficient demand, so on that basis how could it justify all the additional rail infrastructure?

 

[yorksrob]

Unless you are expecting the driver to change ends in the yard north of Buxton (which of course he could easily do) you are then in the position of having to maintain two stations in a small town in a rural area. I don't think the demand would justify a second station and the associated infrastructure costs. If you were travelling from London I wonder whether it would be quicker to travel to Stockport and then catch a train south to Buxton?

In all fairness I think the only realistic justification for reopening route would be as a through route. Buxton is indeed the main town in the area but that isn't saying much given the very rural nature of the area. For whats it worth my neighbour is a Domino's franchisee who was offered the store that they have built on Buxton. He turned it down because he didn't think there would be sufficient demand, so on that basis how could it justify all the additional rail infrastructure?

Presumably Domino's head office have done a little more research on the matter than your neighbour if they intend to open a takeaway there.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Presumably Domino's head office have done a little more research on the matter than your neighbour if they intend to open a takeaway there.

Domino's take 5% of turnover from each of their stores so their business plan is based on opening as many stores as possible. They knew that someone would eventually take on the store but it says a lot when an ambitious franchisee of over 20 years says no.

 

[yorksrob]

Domino's take 5% of turnover from each of their stores so their business plan is based on opening as many stores as possible. They knew that someone would eventually take on the store but it says a lot when an ambitious franchisee of over 20 years says no.

I've been to Buxton. It could easily support a pizza takeaway (depending on how many there already are).

 

[RichmondCommu]

I've been to Buxton. It could easily support a pizza takeaway (depending on how many there already are).

I think that's the key thing here, along with the town's head count. In his opinion there were simply not enough people living in the area to make the shop viable. Domino's marketing means that there will always be a demand for their products but the size of the population is the key thing if you're going to make money.

 

[edwin_m]

I've been to Buxton. It could easily support a pizza takeaway (depending on how many there already are).

But could it support a station, considering there is one there already?

 

[yorksrob]

But could it support a station, considering there is one there already?

To be honest, I would see it linking to the existing station somewhere. Even if you reinstated it to the site of the old Midland station, the platform would be directly outside the current station building, though I'd expect them to build some sort of a curve into the existing station so you could extend existing services southward.

 

[Ash Bridge]

To be honest, I would see it linking to the existing station somewhere. Even if you reinstated it to the site of the old Midland station, the platform would be directly outside the current station building, though I'd expect them to build some sort of a curve into the existing station so you could extend existing services southward.

If the current Derby- Matlock service was extended to Buxton I would have thought terminating at a reopened Midland platform would work fine as like you said it is directly opposite the current station, making it easy to change into the existing Northern services which could remain as now. Any travellers heading for say Stockport, Manchester or beyond (or visa-versa )would anyway be on a mainline service traveling via Peak Forest, Chinley etc.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Chaps it all comes down to how strong the market is from the rest of Derbyshire to Buxton. Given that all of Buxton's commercial links are with Greater Manchester is that honestly going to change if you reinstate the junction from Millersdale?

 

[JohnB57]

To be honest, I would see it linking to the existing station somewhere. Even if you reinstated it to the site of the old Midland station, the platform would be directly outside the current station building, though I'd expect them to build some sort of a curve into the existing station so you could extend existing services southward.

If the current Derby- Matlock service was extended to Buxton I would have thought terminating at a reopened Midland platform would work fine as like you said it is directly opposite the current station, making it easy to change into the existing Northern services which could remain as now. Any travellers heading for say Stockport, Manchester or beyond (or visa-versa )would anyway be on a mainline service traveling via Peak Forest, Chinley etc.

I hesitate to ask an obvious question in such well informed company. But you are aware that, apart from one wall, the old Midland station is long gone and the approaches and southbound curves are now a ring-road, a Buxton Water factory and an Aldi aren't you? Rebuilding any sort of curve in the Matlock direction would be virtually impossible, massively expensive and totally unjustifiable.

 

[yorksrob]

I hesitate to ask an obvious question in such well informed company. But you are aware that, apart from one wall, the old Midland station is long gone and the approaches and southbound curves are now a ring-road, a Buxton Water factory and an Aldi aren't you? Rebuilding any sort of curve in the Matlock direction would be virtually impossible, massively expensive and totally unjustifiable.

According to google maps, the old track bed to the site of the midland railway station is unobstructed except for a car park (no need to remove Aldi at all).

Exactly what remains of the old Midland station doesn't have much to do with it as you'd just build the platform and passengers would use the facilities of the existing (LNWR) station, in the same way that Penzance has a platform outside the main station.

 

[JohnB57]

According to google maps, the old track bed to the site of the midland railway station is unobstructed except for a car park (no need to remove Aldi at all).

Exactly what remains of the old Midland station doesn't have much to do with it as you'd just build the platform and passengers would use the facilities of the existing (LNWR) station, in the same way that Penzance has a platform outside the main station.

The approach to the old station is now the ring-road and the original Matlock facing curve (over the unused bridge pictured in an earlier post) took a path between Aldi and Buxton Water's buildings that is now an approach road and car park - it's very clear on Google Earth. There is nowhere for a redesigned curve to go, especially if you consider the different levels and the viaduct carrying the Hindlow freight line.

 

[yorksrob]

The approach to the old station is now the ring-road and the original Matlock facing curve (over the unused bridge pictured in an earlier post) took a path between Aldi and Buxton Water's buildings that is now an approach road and car park - it's very clear on Google Earth. There is nowhere for a redesigned curve to go, especially if you consider the different levels and the viaduct carrying the Hindlow freight line.

So we're basically talking about a car park and an approach road.

Big deal.

 

[Ash Bridge]

The approach to the old station is now the ring-road and the original Matlock facing curve (over the unused bridge pictured in an earlier post) took a path between Aldi and Buxton Water's buildings that is now an approach road and car park - it's very clear on Google Earth. There is nowhere for a redesigned curve to go, especially if you consider the different levels and the viaduct carrying the Hindlow freight line.

Re: Buxton Water buildings, when I last visited in the late summer of 2014 they had all been demolished, the site was totally raised.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

It's razed!

To raise is to go up, to raze is to go down.

That's your spelling lesson for today folks!

 

[caryh]

The approach to the old station is now the ring-road and the original Matlock facing curve (over the unused bridge pictured in an earlier post) took a path between Aldi and Buxton Water's buildings that is now an approach road and car park - it's very clear on Google Earth. There is nowhere for a redesigned curve to go, especially if you consider the different levels and the viaduct carrying the Hindlow freight line.

It would be perfectly possible to have a curve into the current station, in fact a hundred years ago their was just such a curve. The orignal curve linked the existing station to the ladmanlow line, but the principle would be same. Google earth shows the rignal start of the curve still exists in the form of wall curving off the viaduct approach towards the existing station

The issue would be the severity of the curve, as the sKew of the bridge would be restricted by the line pasing through the viaduct before crossing the new peak rail bridge.

The site is actually quite flat, so don't see any issues with levels.

Map of layout around 1900:

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15&lat=53.25991&lon=-1.91387&layers=1