Restoration of the Peak Line

[Bartsimho]

I've just seen that there is a public consultation for the restoration of the line from Ambergate to Buxton/Chinley. An actual article from the Buxton Advertiser: https://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/...-derbyshires-peak-and-dales-rail-line-4098959

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the aim was to reduce people going to the Peak by car, the Hope Valley line provides a far better basic connection (and Buxton itself for some northern parts). What is then needed is fully integrated bus services to/from the main tourist hotpots.

Active travel (the latest buzzword) is probably not going to solve the issue because there's no way you could accommodate a bicycle for everyone on the trains. Though the best active travel provision I can think of would be to find a way to extend the old railway trail actually into Buxton - as it finishes a few miles short with a busy A road and steep hill in the way people aren't inclined to continue into the town there.

In short, opening this railway might be nice but there are far better ways to spend the money if the aim is to reduce cars in the Peak.

 

[zwk500]

Oh not this again. Walkers do not a business case make. This is just classic Westminster garden-path-leading to get people excited with the threat of an electoral shafting on the horizon. If you want to run public transport into the dales for cyclists and walkers, run shuttle buses from Buxton and Matlock. The railway is for moving bulk loads to the same place, which is the exact opposite of what this proposal is looking to do.

 

[furnessvale]

Oh not this again. Walkers do not a business case make. This is just classic Westminster garden-path-leading to get people excited with the threat of an electoral shafting on the horizon. If you want to run public transport into the dales for cyclists and walkers, run shuttle buses from Buxton and Matlock. The railway is for moving bulk loads to the same place, which is the exact opposite of what this proposal is looking to do.

Apart from the fact that this proposal also includes provion for millions of tonnes of stone, both new and old flows and gives significant relief to the Hope Valley to facilitate TFN south pennine expansion.

 

[Nottingham59]

If you want to run public transport into the dales for cyclists and walkers, run shuttle buses from Buxton and Matlock. The railway is for moving bulk loads to the same place, which is the exact opposite of what this proposal is looking to do.

I notice that the current single track railway from the end of the Monsal Trail to Buxton was originally double track. So a simple fence alongside the line might be the best way to get "rail plus trail" access.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh not this again. Walkers do not a business case make. This is just classic Westminster garden-path-leading to get people excited with the threat of an electoral shafting on the horizon. If you want to run public transport into the dales for cyclists and walkers, run shuttle buses from Buxton and Matlock. The railway is for moving bulk loads to the same place, which is the exact opposite of what this proposal is looking to do.

For walkers a contracted spring to autumn network connecting with the Hope Valley Line like Dalesbus running on weekends, public holidays and school holidays would be of benefit. Midweek and winter demand is very low, so it's no great issue if people drive.

 

[A0]

I've just seen that there is a public consultation for the restoration of the line from Ambergate to Buxton/Chinley. An actual article from the Buxton Advertiser: https://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/...-derbyshires-peak-and-dales-rail-line-4098959

Bit in bold - it isn't an official consultation at all. Nothing like it.

It's MEMRAP - who are to this campaign what SELRAP are to the Colne - Skipton campaign and ERTA are to any number of other ridiculous / no chance re-openings across England.

Once again, local rag re-runs campaign group's "press release" without doing a basic hygiene check on it.

 

[Dr Hoo]

They're awesome bizarre things in the MEMRAP press release. For example:

"The vast majority of National Park visitors today still arrive by car. However, MEMRAP’s informal questioning on the Monsal Trail in 2022 (which saw 3,000 visitors surveyed) indicated a strong preference for leaving cars at home and arriving by rail, with a “last mile” connection of active travel or bus."

So, they asked people who were presumably walking, cycling, horse riding, in wheelchairs or whatever along what is already a delightful 'active travel' corridor? They supposedly wanted to see it re-opened as a busy railway line with massive freight trains rumbling alongside them in the six tunnels, somehow fitting in with local stopping passenger trains from which they could alight with their bikes, horses, etc. Not to mention numerous 'level crossings' for the many field paths that now cross the trail on the flat.

Yeah. Right.

 

[zwk500]

They're awesome bizarre things in the MEMRAP press release. For example:

"The vast majority of National Park visitors today still arrive by car. However, MEMRAP’s informal questioning on the Monsal Trail in 2022 (which saw 3,000 visitors surveyed) indicated a strong preference for leaving cars at home and arriving by rail, with a “last mile” connection of active travel or bus."

So, they asked people who were presumably walking, cycling, horse riding, in wheelchairs or whatever along what is already a delightful 'active travel' corridor? They supposedly wanted to see it re-opened as a busy railway line with massive freight trains rumbling alongside them in the six tunnels, somehow fitting in with local stopping passenger trains from which they could alight with their bikes, horses, etc. Not to mention numerous 'level crossings' for the many field paths that now cross the trail on the flat.

Yeah. Right.

Worth pointing out that nothing in the linked article mentions freight of inter-urban services. It talks only about unlocking access to the peaks for cyclists and walkers wihtout closing the Monsal train (somehow, that bit's rather vague).

 

[HSTEd]

Apart from the fact that this proposal also includes provion for millions of tonnes of stone, both new and old flows and gives significant relief to the Hope Valley to facilitate TFN south pennine expansion.

The amount of money this route would cost to construct would pay for fixing the entire Hope Valley/Buxton railway mess once and for all. There would be no need to provide "relief".

A single, modern railway in the valley with a simple branch to Buxton would provide superior service and consume less subsidy than the status quo - unlike this proposal which does neither of those things.

 

[6Gman]

They're awesome bizarre things in the MEMRAP press release. For example:

"The vast majority of National Park visitors today still arrive by car. However, MEMRAP’s informal questioning on the Monsal Trail in 2022 (which saw 3,000 visitors surveyed) indicated a strong preference for leaving cars at home and arriving by rail, with a “last mile” connection of active travel or bus."

So, they asked people who were presumably walking, cycling, horse riding, in wheelchairs or whatever along what is already a delightful 'active travel' corridor? They supposedly wanted to see it re-opened as a busy railway line with massive freight trains rumbling alongside them in the six tunnels, somehow fitting in with local stopping passenger trains from which they could alight with their bikes, horses, etc. Not to mention numerous 'level crossings' for the many field paths that now cross the trail on the flat.

Yeah. Right.

There is a well known effect in surveys that people tend to answer in the way they feel they "should" answer, rather than accurately.

To questions such as "would you use a bus service if it was introduced?" Where they say "yes", and when asked how often they exaggerate. So when they say they would use it once or twice a week the reality is more like twice a year when the car is being serviced . . .

I suspect a similar effect here.

 

[johnnychips]

I notice that the current single track railway from the end of the Monsal Trail to Buxton was originally double track. So a simple fence alongside the line might be the best way to get "rail plus trail" access.

The old track is degraded and you would not, indeed, believe it could have ever been double-tracked in some areas. It would cost a ridiculous amount to restore, and cause huge inconvenience to the now legitimate users of the line, namely walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

 

[zwk500]

The old track is degraded and you would not, indeed, believe it could have ever been double-tracked in some areas. It would cost a ridiculous amount to restore, and cause huge inconvenience to the now legitimate users of the line, namely walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

It is an interesting image with a Class 66 hauling 3600 tonnes of aggregate uphill past a horse. I wouldn't want to be that rider!

 

[SuspectUsual]

That article is a bit late for April Fools Day, even for a godawful Reach website

 

[rapmastaj]

Of all the proposed reopenings this is the most idiotic. The Monsal Trail is a beautiful and very popular walking and cycling route through the heart of one of the most ecologically bountiful valleys in the peak. To replace it (or somehow 'parallel it') with an unnecessary railway would be nonsensical.

It's even worse than the semi-regular proposal to put trams on the Bristol and Bath railway path, and that's bad enough.

 

[507020]

Ambergate to Buxton/Chinley

My view of this is that, whether built in full or not, HS2 will never carry 100% of Manchester/Leeds - London journeys. Given this, there will always be a necessity for conventional Manchester/Leeds - London paths post-HS2, in addition to the released capacity for rail freight that HS2 delivers. Therefore, a Manchester path should be provided long term on the Midland Main Line via Miller’s Dale (not the Hope Valley) in addition to the residual Manchester service on the WCML.

It is actually only the Peak Forest Junction - Matlock section which requires special consideration for reopening, rather than the Buxton/Chinley - Ambergate that some may suggest, which is a vastly shorter distance over which Network Rail infrastructure, however degraded, is not still extant.

Active travel (the latest buzzword) is probably not going to solve the issue because there's no way you could accommodate a bicycle for everyone on the trains.

Accommodating a bicycle for all passengers using the service, or going one step further and denying use of the service to passengers without bicycles is perhaps what is required for a service such as is, that is Manchester - Derby - London, so as to encourage active travel journeys at either end. This may be more realistic than accommodating vast amounts of bicycles on HS2.

The amount of money this route would cost to construct would pay for fixing the entire Hope Valley/Buxton railway mess once and for all. There would be no need to provide "relief".

A single, modern railway in the valley with a simple branch to Buxton would provide superior service and consume less subsidy than the status quo - unlike this proposal which does neither of those things.

What exactly is wrong with the Hope Valley? Admittedly it is no Woodhead and you cannot run a long term London - Manchester service via the Dore curve, but is is a perfectly good New Mills - Sheffield alignment.

The old track is degraded and you would not, indeed, believe it could have ever been double-tracked in some areas. It would cost a ridiculous amount to restore, and cause huge inconvenience to the now legitimate users of the line, namely walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

An important consideration is that a new parallel tunnel must be constructed to carry the reopened Midland Main Line to prevent the loss of the Monsal Trail to cyclists and horse riders, but I wouldn’t call this ridiculous. I reiterate that conventional rail service between Manchester, Leeds and London will continue to be a necessity well beyond HS2. Why not build an underground station in the middle of the tunnel and advertise on the main London - Manchester services “Change here for the Monsal Trail”?

Note that I have made no mention of the fact that the Miller’s Dale section of the Midland Main Line facilitates all of London - Manchester conventional InterCity service, supplementing the WCML including post-HS2, Manchester - Derby, a corridor which is currently unserved and also serves Bakewell, both a settlement and honeypot/tourist site which is again unserved. Since it is not merely some sort of branch line and the vast majority of the route is still extant with 110/125mph running, it seems a very credible candidate for full reopening.

 

[HSTEd]

What exactly is wrong with the Hope Valley? Admittedly it is no Woodhead and you cannot run a long term London - Manchester service via the Dore curve, but is is a perfectly good New Mills - Sheffield alignment.

Two (and a half) largely parallel railways running hundreds of metres apart is hardly optimum in terms of serving the population with an attractive service.

Ideally, a modern solution would be able to serve the settlements in the valley (plus Buxton), as well as longer distance and freight needs on a single electrified alignment.

An important consideration is that a new parallel tunnel must be constructed to carry the reopened Midland Main Line to prevent the loss of the Monsal Trail to cyclists and horse riders, but I wouldn’t call this ridiculous. I reiterate that conventional rail service between Manchester, Leeds and London will continue to be a necessity well beyond HS2. Why not build an underground station in the middle of the tunnel and advertise on the main London - Manchester services “Change here for the Monsal Trail”?

Why would a conventional rail service between Manchester, Leeds or London run via a new line rather than the existing ones?
There are nearly 2km worth of tunnels on the Monsal trail, duplicating them is going to put your budget through the roof!

 

[Bertie the bus]

It's MEMRAP - who are to this campaign what SELRAP are to the Colne - Skipton campaign and ERTA are to any number of other ridiculous / no chance re-openings across England.

Once again, local rag re-runs campaign group's "press release" without doing a basic hygiene check on it.

The author of the article is the CEO of MEMRAP. Nothing more really needs to be said about this "story".

 

[507020]

Two (and a half) largely parallel railways running hundreds of metres apart is hardly optimum in terms of serving the population with an attractive service.

Ideally, a modern solution would be able to serve the settlements in the valley (plus Buxton), as well as longer distance and freight needs on a single electrified alignment.

If you are referring to the situation at New Mills with the M&GCJR, Disley Cutoff and L&NWR Buxton branch running parallel, I agree it’s not ideal but doubt anything can be done about it now. The opportunity should therefore be taken for each route to carry different traffic, rather than it all sharing a single alignment.

The most modern approach (and equally any centrally planned approach) would combine the Buxton branch with the Miller’s Dale section of the Midland Main Line and the Hope Valley, to create a single alignment serving all settlements and all destinations, but since this was not done in the first place, Manchester - Derby capacity must be provided and Bakewell must be served in addition to Buxton and other settlements along the Hope Valley line, not much can be done other than the reinstatement of the Midland Main Line to Manchester.

Why would a conventional rail service between Manchester, Leeds or London run via a new line rather than the existing ones?
There are nearly 2km worth of tunnels on the Monsal trail, duplicating them is going to put your budget through the roof!

Conventional rail service is inherently unable to run on a new alignment, since the term “conventional” refers exclusively to the service provided using infrastructure built prior to the shooting of the archduke. The alternative to conventional rail service running on conventional infrastructure is “high speed” as provided by HS2.

I am aware that duplicating tunnels is problematic, however, being both pro-cycling and pro-rail, I question the reuse of Victorian tunnels which have only been deemed suitable to carry cyclists since the 1960s and also question the loss of cycling infrastructure as much as I support the reopening of the railway. Therefore a new tunnel duplicating the original is preferable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would a conventional rail service between Manchester, Leeds or London run via a new line rather than the existing ones?
There are nearly 2km worth of tunnels on the Monsal trail, duplicating them is going to put your budget through the roof!

The Trail used to go over the top, anyway (though obviously not as good for bikes). But if you were boring anything new, a smaller cycle tunnel would be cheaper than a full size rail one!

 

[D365]

Of all the proposed reopenings this is the most idiotic. The Monsal Trail is a beautiful and very popular walking and cycling route through the heart of one of the most ecologically bountiful valleys in the peak. To replace it (or somehow 'parallel it') with an unnecessary railway would be nonsensical.

I wouldn't call it idiotic - if the route hadn't been closed, it would be a vital artery - but I don't see it coming back.

 

[A0]

An important consideration is that a new parallel tunnel must be constructed to carry the reopened Midland Main Line to prevent the loss of the Monsal Trail to cyclists and horse riders, but I wouldn’t call this ridiculous. I reiterate that conventional rail service between Manchester, Leeds and London will continue to be a necessity well beyond HS2. Why not build an underground station in the middle of the tunnel and advertise on the main London - Manchester services “Change here for the Monsal Trail”?

Note that I have made no mention of the fact that the Miller’s Dale section of the Midland Main Line facilitates all of London - Manchester conventional InterCity service, supplementing the WCML including post-HS2, Manchester - Derby, a corridor which is currently unserved and also serves Bakewell, both a settlement and honeypot/tourist site which is again unserved. Since it is not merely some sort of branch line and the vast majority of the route is still extant with 110/125mph running, it seems a very credible candidate for full reopening.

I'm afraid the bit in bold merely demonstrates that you, like the campaigners at MEMRAP, are utterly detached from reality.

Rebuilding even a single line railway along that trackbed will destroy the Monsal Trail as a footpath or trail usable by cyclists or horseriders. There mere act of rebuilding the railway would necessitate many, many months of total closure - and in anycase I'm not sure anyone out for a nice walk in the countryside would elect to do it alongside a building site.

But aside from that - apart from a couple of heritage railways (such as the Avon Valley or Northampton & Lamport), I can't think of any case where there is a major, well used, multi user trail or footpath alongside a mainline railway. The very act of putting in a railway line will kill it for horse riders as the train is likely to spook a horse. For walkers and probably cyclists using a trail which in all probability would be fenced in using metal palisade fencing of the kind seen across the country, with trains passing a couple of metres away from you at 60 mph is not likely to be an attractive prospect.

Bakewell is a bit of a tourist attract, but it is not a tourist "honeypot" in the way you seem to think it is - it's certainly not on the same level as Bourton on the Water in the Cotswolds or Bowness in the Lakes - and both of those manage to attract a lot of tourist custom without being rail linked.

And then in your last sentence you claim

and the vast majority of the route is still extant with 110/125mph running

a footpath alongside a 100mph railway line is even less attractive - furthermore the line was not particularly high speed even when open. You're making an assumption, which I think is flawed, that it will be possible to uplift that formation to a 100 mph + line - the evidence along a number of stretches of the Midland Mainline shows that's been difficult in some cases and not even possible in others - see Wellingborough for example.

 

[zwk500]

Of all the proposed reopenings this is the most idiotic.

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

My view of this is that, whether built in full or not, HS2 will never carry 100% of Manchester/Leeds - London journeys. Given this, there will always be a necessity for conventional Manchester/Leeds - London paths post-HS2, in addition to the released capacity for rail freight that HS2 delivers. Therefore, a Manchester path should be provided long term on the Midland Main Line via Miller’s Dale (not the Hope Valley) in addition to the residual Manchester service on the WCML.

An upgraded Hope Valley will carry that demand handily.

It is actually only the Peak Forest Junction - Matlock section which requires special consideration for reopening, rather than the Buxton/Chinley - Ambergate that some may suggest, which is a vastly shorter distance over which Network Rail infrastructure, however degraded, is not still extant.

Have a look at the Buxton end and see what might be the issue with rebuilding the line through there.

Note that I have made no mention of the fact that the Miller’s Dale section of the Midland Main Line facilitates all of London - Manchester conventional InterCity service, supplementing the WCML including post-HS2, Manchester - Derby, a corridor which is currently unserved and also serves Bakewell, both a settlement and honeypot/tourist site which is again unserved. Since it is not merely some sort of branch line and the vast majority of the route is still extant with 110/125mph running, it seems a very credible candidate for full reopening.

It's really, really not. London-Manchester will be supplemented by the classic WCML. Manchester-Derby, while it would have saved the route if proposed for closure today, is not enough to sustain the line. Bakewell can be served by an extension of the branch if it really needs it, pushing through Miller's Dale is just lunacy.

Two (and a half) largely parallel railways running hundreds of metres apart is hardly optimum in terms of serving the population with an attractive service.

Ideally, a modern solution would be able to serve the settlements in the valley (plus Buxton), as well as longer distance and freight needs on a single electrified alignment.

Two largely parallel railways is not necessarily the end of the world, the problem is that they both have to carry the stopping traffic and one has to carry both freight and long distance passenger traffic as well, so instead of a neat division into effectively 'fast' and 'slow' or 'through' and 'local' lines you have an underused branch line and an overused mainline.
Sadly the way the lines have been built means any attempt to do more than has been done with the Hazel Grove link would be uneconomic.

 

[tbtc]

Trying to be kind, I suppose that it’s a better case than Stranraer to Dumfries or some of the other nonsense reopening that keep getting brought up (despite evidence!)

Dr Beeching had this line down to survive; the fact that it closed is entirely down to British Rail/ politicians

If it were still operational today then I wouldn’t be demanding its closure, I’m sure it’d be of more use than a lot of basket case lines… (in the same way that there are a lot of lines that don’t carry many passengers today but aren’t huge priorities for closing)

But clearly it didn’t survive, and spaffing a billion pounds (or whatever the final sum will be) is ridiculous in the current environment.

Just because it once existed doesn’t mean there’s any need to bring it back. But then some BufferStopPhobic enthusiasts have a mindset where they downplay a line on a brand new alignment (e.g. HS2 with eighteen trains an hour, 400m long, ultra-fast) but do fixate on reinstating rural routes which closed over fifty years ago where you might get a couple of trains a day because they are obsessed with the past

Evidence that this line through fairly empty countryside is a classic Solution In Need Of A Problem (SINOAP, not to be confused with SELRAP!) is the way that the same people often come up with completely contradictory “justifications” - they aren’t interested in solving actual problems, they just want an old line to reopen and with backwards from there

So one moment the “Peak” line can be a single track route to ensure that there’s still sufficient space for the walkers/ cyclists (ignoring the many bridges you’d have to build to maintain current access points to the Trail, the obvious problem of horse riders sharing a tunnel with diesel trains etc)…

… Then it’s a relatively fast alignment from London to Manchester with 125mph trains (ignoring the curves of the Peak District and the fact that huge numbers of seats will be freed up on the existing London to Manchester route once HS2 comes along, because we simply must reinstate some daft Victorian plan)…

…. But then it’s a freight route to take the long/ slow Quarry services off the Hope Vallley route (although obviously not the cement trains from Hope itself)…

.., no, wait, it needs a local service to stop at all of the intermediate villages (because presumably a relatively fast London to Manchester train won’t stop between Derby and Stockport or whichever equivalent station it passes on its way into Manchester?)

We even had a thread where some enthusiast for reopening the line wanted to go there whole hog and close the East Didsbury Metrolink line so that London trains could run the “authentic” way to a newly reopened station in central Manchester!

(I suppose I should be thankful that the “must have London services” fns haven’t broken into an argument about whether it ought to go to St Pancras or down the GC to Marylebone… Maybe a circular route north of Leicester, with trains running northbound through Bakewell, passing through Castlefield and heading back south via Woodhead?)

In short, it’s nonsense. A single track line with frequent freight in each direction and long distance passenger trains doing 125mph, all just the other side of the fence from horse riders and kids learning to ride bikes. Nope, I can’t see any flaws there….

there will always be a necessity for conventional Manchester/Leeds - London paths post-HS2, in addition to the released capacity for rail freight that HS2 delivers. Therefore, a Manchester path should be provided long term on the Midland Main Line via Miller’s Dale (not the Hope Valley) in addition to the residual Manchester service on the WCML

What exactly is wrong with the Hope Valley? Admittedly it is no Woodhead and you cannot run a long term London - Manchester service via the Dore curve, but is is a perfectly good New Mills - Sheffield alignment.

Why can’t you run a London - Manchester service via the chord at Dore?

I mean, it’d be a nonsense service whether via Bakewell or Hope but any extra capacity would be a lot easier to build on the Hope line than a mega-project through Bakewell

Why not build an underground station in the middle of the tunnel and advertise on the main London - Manchester services “Change here for the Monsal Trail”?

Ah, phew, I thought you were being serious… apologies!

Bakewell, both a settlement and honeypot/tourist site which is again unserved

Bakewell.. a town of under four thousand people… which is much more in the orbit of Sheffield than any other city

But then these threads are never about solving actual problems (e.g. if you need to build a railway to Bakewell then a branch south from Grindleford would give the town a service to the city that it has more connections with, maybe even a Chatsworth P&R whilst you’re at it, but this isn’t about looking at travel patterns in the twenty first century, this is just about dusting down some nineteenth century Rail Atlas)

(Credit to @zwk500 for making the Stranraer comment first)

 

[XAM2175]

Conventional rail service is inherently unable to run on a new alignment, since the term “conventional” refers exclusively to the service provided using infrastructure built prior to the shooting of the archduke. The alternative to conventional rail service running on conventional infrastructure is “high speed” as provided by HS2.

What on earth is this tripe meant to mean?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

What on earth is this tripe meant to mean?

The new/reinstated 36 miles of line needs to be in a big tunnel? Or something like that? Could mean anything!

 

[507020]

What on earth is this tripe meant to mean?

That the term “conventional network” refers almost exclusively to railways built prior to the First World War (which of course started with the shooting of the archduke) and the vast majority of new alignments built since then e.g. the Selby diversion have some high speed component that is not conventional in the same sense.

The new/reinstated 36 miles of line needs to be in a big tunnel? Or something like that? Could mean anything!

If following the same conventional alignment, the original tunnel section would need to be reinstated in a tunnel and it would need to be a big tunnel for electrification clearance (has this been suggested as a reason not to reuse the original tunnel?) but not the entire route would be in a tunnel. Given how hilly the terrain is, I’m not sure that would actually be possible unless the tunnel was excessively deep.

 

[zwk500]

That the term “conventional network” refers almost exclusively to railways built prior to the First World War (which of course started with the shooting of the archduke) and the vast majority of new alignments built since then e.g. the Selby diversion have some high speed component that is not conventional in the same sense.

No it doesn't, it refers to the network used by trains travelling at speeds below that defined as 'High-Speed', which is 125mph/200kph for upgraded track or 140mph/225kph for new track.
Plenty of railways have been built (or rebuilt) post-1914 that are not 125mph+

If following the same conventional alignment, the original tunnel section would need to be reinstated in a tunnel and it would need to be a big tunnel for electrification clearance (has this been suggested as a reason not to reuse the original tunnel?) but not the entire route would be in a tunnel. Given how hilly the terrain is, I’m not sure that would actually be possible unless the tunnel was excessively deep.

What on earth are you on about? It would be perfectly possible to get a derogation to reuse the old tunnel should it be the only feasible option. It would need some remedial work for sure, and the footpath sending somewhere else, but grandfathered tunnels have been reopened before (2 of them called Snow Hill Tunnel coincidentally, in London and Birmingham).

 

[HSTEd]

Two largely parallel railways is not necessarily the end of the world, the problem is that they both have to carry the stopping traffic and one has to carry both freight and long distance passenger traffic as well, so instead of a neat division into effectively 'fast' and 'slow' or 'through' and 'local' lines you have an underused branch line and an overused mainline.
Sadly the way the lines have been built means any attempt to do more than has been done with the Hazel Grove link would be uneconomic.

You could always try a chord from the Buxton line at Chapel-en-le-frith onto the line through the centre of the village to join the Hope Valley route. Possibly close the existing Chapel-en-le-frith station in favour of the currently closed one on the freight line. There is enough room to get the track down the relevant height in the fields south of the settlement.

That would allow the bulk of the stopping traffic to switch onto the Buxton line - either skipping Chinley or serving it from the east.
If you did the Marple tram-train proposal you could extend that to New Mills Central and be left with a two-track hope valley line with negligible non-through traffic.

But this is rather off topic!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

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