Peaks and Dales line - feasibility study submitted

[Zomboid]

But what capacity would Manchester to Derby require? 2-3 cars once per hour? 5 cars every 15 minutes?

People will always want to get from place to place, so if there was a train it would have passengers. But it'd need to be considerably closer to the latter to come anywhere near justifying the investment required to make it happen.

 

[The Planner]

Sorry, I see what you're getting at.
From experience of working and travelling on the trains there is sufficient demand now for a direct service from Manchester to Derby and beyond. In addition I would expect that a direct service would create additional traffic from people who currently either drive or choose not to travel. As @yorksrob states, if the "Peaks and Dales" reopening took place there would also be traffic from Matlock, Bakewell etc.

However, if the service went via the Dore curve IMO the various transport planners, mayors etc. would not be able to resist the temptation to "sweat the assets" and divert the service via Sheffield, leading to a longer journey time and probably to overcrowding.

Again IMO, to unlock the full potential of the Manchester to Derby flow (and vice versa, of course) you would need to reopen the "Peaks and Dales" route.

You don't. My previous post about journey times above doesn't make this line any more competitive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2026 ==

Granted Stockport to Manchester might cause an issue, but given that it's still absolute block through Stockport it must be due for resignalling at some point anyway.

Its AB in the station. Makes little difference to how it works now. Stockport is 15 years away from any resignalling.

 

[furnessvale]

Why wouldn't it? Still needs track and structures capable of 2000 tonne aggregate trains and signalling etc. If anything its cheaper if freight didn't use it. Add on what needs tp be done at either end on the existing network too.

That depends on the level of signalling specified. I have seen busy class 1 railroads in the USA with hand points on the mainline. You will also notice that in response to an attempt to load full costing onto a freight only railway I immediately reduced it to a required single line, removing at least a third off track costs.

It is all academic, a bankrupt UK wont be spending this sort of money.

 

[The Planner]

That depends on the level of signalling specified. I have seen busy class 1 railroads in the USA with hand points on the mainline. You will also notice that in response to an attempt to load full costing onto a freight only railway I immediately reduced it to a required single line, removing at least a third off track costs.

It is all academic, a bankrupt UK wont be spending this sort of money.

No one is building a new railway with hand points.

 

[Falcon1200]

but there is a strong passenger flow from Manchester to Derby, and also to Leicester, Loughborough, St Pancras and to a lesser extent Luton and East Midlands Parkway.

A strong passenger flow between Manchester and St Pancras - Really, and why, given that there is a far faster and more frequent route available?!! Let's not forget that one reason the route closed was because BR had just spent a lot of money electrifying and resignalling (mostly) the ex-LNWR route, and under a nationalised railway there was no justification for duplicate routes between Manchester and London.

I do find the negative rhetoric regarding any railway reopening in this country disheartening, and typical examples can be seen in this thread!

With any plan such as this there has to be a recognition of what is possible and what is not, and while this line would no doubt attract traffic the benefits would be far outweighed, multiple times, by the immense cost. Money which Government (of any colour) desperately needs for other things.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

A strong passenger flow between Manchester and St Pancras - Really, and why, given that there is a far faster and more frequent route available?!! Let's not forget that one reason the route closed was because BR had just spent a lot of money electrifying and resignalling (mostly) the ex-LNWR route, and under a nationalised railway there was no justification for duplicate routes between Manchester and London.

It's because of the rise of online booking apps which send people on weird and wonderful routes in order to save a few quid.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2026 ==

You don't. My previous post about journey times above doesn't make this line any more competitive.

Without wishing to engage in verbal (textual?) ping-pong you do; the Hope Valley does not have the capacity to run the extra service reliably.
Similar to the argument against HS2 (just use the money to upgrade the ECML and WCML), we cannot simply keep adding traffic to already congested existing routes. At some point we have to either open new routes or reopen disused ones.
Of course when we get the high-speed line between Sheffield and Manchester (I forget when it was proposed), the Hope Valley will have capacity!!

Its AB in the station. Makes little difference to how it works now. Stockport is 15 years away from any resignalling.

If we're splitting hairs it's AB from Edgeley Junction no.1 to Heaton Norris, and it does slow passage of trains to an extent as they have to be passed between five signal boxes (Edgeley 1 and 2, Stockport 1 and 2 and Heaton Norris).
But I concur that 15 years is a reasonable estimate for resignalling.

 

[WAO]

This debate is similar to my mind to that of the Okehampton -Plymouth case, with similar, valid and hotly held arguments on both sides.

On the supply side, NR will only re-open a route to modern standards, effectively a near total rebuild at the costs quoted. Its contractors will (have to) take a cautious approach but will do a very good job and produce work that will last indefinitely, more so than the Victorians, even.

On the demand side, there is the freight from quarrying and also (potentially improved) passenger flows from Lancs to the East Midlands, if the regional economies prosper. Additionally, local traffic will materialise as well as leisure traffic to the Trail and Dale. Whether all this could cover its (typical Northern) operating costs let alone repay capital is debatable.

There must be some political demand for this otherwise such reports would not be drafted. The Regional Mayors finessed £15.6Bn out of Rachel Reeves for trams'n things, last June.

The joker here is Peak rail. If it could be enabled to extend (at its costs) to Bakewell, then a considerable advance would be made in tourist rail access, better than the bus. It would need the A6 untangling in Rowsley (which separately needs an expensive by-pass) etc. That would cost a tiny fraction of £2Bn and would not clash with the present Monsal Trail. It would need agreement on public funding for a private line and also working out mixed running powers over private/heritage lines but that could help elsewhere.

We shall see.

WAO

 

[Merle Haggard]

A strong passenger flow between Manchester and St Pancras - Really, and why, given that there is a far faster and more frequent route available?!! Let's not forget that one reason the route closed was because BR had just spent a lot of money electrifying and resignalling (mostly) the ex-LNWR route, and under a nationalised railway there was no justification for duplicate routes between Manchester and London.



With any plan such as this there has to be a recognition of what is possible and what is not, and while this line would no doubt attract traffic the benefits would be far outweighed, multiple times, by the immense cost. Money which Government (of any colour) desperately needs for other things.

It would possibly have closed earlier but, during the Euston-Birmingham-Manchester-Liverpool electrification, it provided for the London - Manchester market. Once the electric service started the remaining St Pancras to Manchester trains were very quiet.
For passengers from stations on the MML South of Leicester, driving to WCML stations provides an hourly Milton Keynes & Rugby to Manchester Avanti service taking, respectively, 1 hr 40 mins and 1 hr 20 mins. Even the former is slightly quicker than the time taken just from Derby to Manchester by a (Diesel-hauled) express in 1964.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

It is all academic, a bankrupt UK wont be spending this sort of money.

Sadly this is true.
The best case is that the business case study gets the go ahead. It will probably conclude that there is a business case, following which it will be realised that the entire available budget has been spent on the feasibility study and business case. The project will then be put on hold. The local MP will raise the issue in the Commons and get a stock reply involving "tough decisions, other schemes to consider etc."
At some point international railfreight will be mentioned (as seems to be the law in railway reopening campaigns...Rowsley Europort anyone??).
And it will all go quiet until the next feasibility study

 

[Topological]

Currently, Derby to Manchester Piccadilly is 1 hour 34 minutes, including changes at either Sheffield or Stoke. Does anyone expect the direct via Matlock to be quicker than that?

Leicester to Manchester is done via Nuneaton, but can be done via Sheffield in just over 2 hours. Given via Sheffield uses the train that stops at Derby, the only relevant comparison is on the Derby to Manchester part.

I do not even think this will come back with a positive business case, nevermind a case that then gets ignored by politicians.

 

[The Planner]

If we're splitting hairs it's AB from Edgeley Junction no.1 to Heaton Norris, and it does slow passage of trains to an extent as they have to be passed between five signal boxes (Edgeley 1 and 2, Stockport 1 and 2 and Heaton Norris).
But I concur that 15 years is a reasonable estimate for resignalling.

I have planned it in the past, it genuinely doesn't make a difference.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why are the simple ADD ON of a few freight trains suddenly expected to carry the entire cost of a reopening designed to provide various levels of passenger service as well?

I didn‘t say it would or should. I was mereley pointing out that the freight benefit of such a line is a very small fraction of the cost.

It will probably conclude that there is a business case,

It won’t, a) because nothing has changed since the last two attempts to take this forward (when there was patently no case for it), and therefore b) there won’t be any work towards an SOBC.

The project will then be put on hold.

Impossible. Because there is no project to put on hold.

 

[Pigeon]

Currently, Derby to Manchester Piccadilly is 1 hour 34 minutes, including changes at either Sheffield or Stoke. Does anyone expect the direct via Matlock to be quicker than that?

Sure. It's a much more direct route, it doesn't involve going 5 miles off to the side and then the same 5 miles back again, and it doesn't involve changing trains. Simply the elimination of that 10 miles wasted travel and the change of trains (as by a Dore South routing) ought to save 20 minutes, even without the shorter route. The significant slacks are all at places where a stopping (cf. Hope Valley/Derby-Stoke) train would be stopping anyway. If it doesn't get under an hour and ten then somebody will have allowed a male gonad to respond freely to the force of gravity.

Let's not forget that one reason the route closed was because BR had just spent a lot of money electrifying and resignalling (mostly) the ex-LNWR route, and under a nationalised railway there was no justification for duplicate routes between Manchester and London.

It's not a duplicate route between Manchester and London. It's (a) an alternative route between Manchester and London, and (b) a route serving a completely different set of places between Manchester and London. By all means upgrade one route, but that does not justify clobbering a different route that serves different, if overlapping, functions (especially when the overlap has just proved its value and may in the course of time do so again). We need to be repairing the damage caused by all the mistakes of this nature, not citing the mistakes as justification for perpetuating it.

 

[Topological]

Sure. It's a much more direct route, it doesn't involve going 5 miles off to the side and then the same 5 miles back again, and it doesn't involve changing trains. Simply the elimination of that 10 miles wasted travel and the change of trains (as by a Dore South routing) ought to save 20 minutes, even without the shorter route. The significant slacks are all at places where a stopping (cf. Hope Valley/Derby-Stoke) train would be stopping anyway. If it doesn't get under an hour and ten then somebody will have allowed a male gonad to respond freely to the force of gravity.



It's not a duplicate route between Manchester and London. It's (a) an alternative route between Manchester and London, and (b) a route serving a completely different set of places between Manchester and London. By all means upgrade one route, but that does not justify clobbering a different route that serves different, if overlapping, functions (especially when the overlap has just proved its value and may in the course of time do so again). We need to be repairing the damage caused by all the mistakes of this nature, not citing the mistakes as justification for perpetuating it.

Just using the Dore South curve saves the duplication of the Sheffield distance (and reversing time) and can be done for next to nothing. Most of the additional 3rd fast path was delivered.

No need to spend any money on Matlock to Buxton.

The only journeys gained from reopening are pairs that involve the East Midlands to Buxton, Manchester to Matlock and then any stations opened between Matlock and Buxton. All other flows can be catered for without reopening (if the desire is there).

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

It won’t, a) because nothing has changed since the last two attempts to take this forward (when there was patently no case for it), and therefore b) there won’t be any work towards an SOBC.

If you read the full post it doesn't really matter if there is a business case or not, because as I (and others) have stated it won't get built!

Impossible. Because there is no project to put on hold

And once again I will split hairs...it seems from the OP that there has already been a feasibility study. In itself that could be classed as a project... so even if it goes no further than this, it will be a project on hold

 

[Falcon1200]

It's not a duplicate route between Manchester and London. It's (a) an alternative route between Manchester and London

It was certainly seen as a duplicate route at the time!

(b) a route serving a completely different set of places between Manchester and London.

The only different places of any consequence served by the Midland Route were Derby and Leicester, from where it is still possible to reach Manchester via connections to the WCML. But as already mentioned the line is not going to get built.

 

[furnessvale]

I didn‘t say it would or should. I was mereley pointing out that the freight benefit of such a line is a very small fraction of the cost.

You took the entire cost of the railway and divided it between the number of freight trains to arrive at a figure per freight train.

That is exactly what you did.

 

[Bald Rick]

And once again I will split hairs...it seems from the OP that there has already been a feasibility study.

Not by any recognised meaning of the word feasibility.

 

[The exile]

A strong passenger flow between Manchester and St Pancras - Really, and why, given that there is a far faster and more frequent route available?!! Let's not forget that one reason the route closed was because BR had just spent a lot of money electrifying and resignalling (mostly) the ex-LNWR route, and under a nationalised railway there was no justification for duplicate routes between Manchester and London.

The elimination of duplicate routes in itself only made sense for routes that literally duplicated all their intermediate stops (ie “rival stations” within walking distance of each other) or for near non-stop expresses. In any other circumstances closure of a “duplicate route” for that reason alone would be no more than misguided ideology. Of course - economic arguments came in as well but probably didn’t work with the non-travelling voter (or civil servant) than “why keep route 1when route 2 gets you from A to B quicker?” (glossing over the fact that doing so entails closure of half the intermediates on route 2 and all of those on route 1.)

 

[geoffk]

What is the freight potential of this route? Could it be used to relieve pressure on the existing trans pennine corridors, although I’m aware that it does nothing to alleviate bottlenecks in and around Manchester.

From a quick look at RTT, most of the freight traffic originating on or near the Hope Valley seems to be heading towards Sheffield or Manchester rather than Derby. Is that everyone's impression?

 

[yorksrob]

Just using the Dore South curve saves the duplication of the Sheffield distance (and reversing time) and can be done for next to nothing. Most of the additional 3rd fast path was delivered.

No need to spend any money on Matlock to Buxton.

The only journeys gained from reopening are pairs that involve the East Midlands to Buxton, Manchester to Matlock and then any stations opened between Matlock and Buxton. All other flows can be catered for without reopening (if the desire is there).

People do like to travel to Matlock, Buxton and the peak district in general.

 

[furnessvale]

From a quick look at RTT, most of the freight traffic originating on or near the Hope Valley seems to be heading towards Sheffield or Manchester rather than Derby. Is that everyone's impression?

You get a better impression looking at RTT for Peak Forest sb. Given that all trains have to head north before turning east or west at Chinley, it is no surprise that many are ultimately for the north but a considerable tonnage ultimately turns south and heads for the West Midlands, East Anglia and the South East.

Removing this traffic, and future expansion of this traffic, can only assist NPR aspirations for passenger expansion on this route.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The elimination of duplicate routes in itself only made sense for routes that literally duplicated all their intermediate stops (ie “rival stations” within walking distance of each other) or for near non-stop expresses.

The test, really, was whether the railway line would be profitable or socially necessary with the express traffic removed.

That’s largely why the Hope Valley stayed open: the local stations wouldn’t have had a viable alternative to the train, especially as they couldn’t get the Mam Tor Road to stay in one place.

Whereas Bakewell had the A6 trunk road north to Buxton or south to Matlock.

 

[YorksLad12]

A question, as I'm not from those parts. Further upthread, the intention seems to be to facilitate Derby-Manchester journeys. If Manchester-Buxton and Matlock-Derby didn't still exist, would anyone be suggesting opening the whole route? Or would they suggest a new line from Derby to Manchester via, say, Ashbourne and Leek to Macclesfield?

Is the issue "Manchester-Derby" or "re-connecting local stations"?

 

[Topological]

People do like to travel to Matlock, Buxton and the peak district in general.

People do.

So you are also relying on the Manchester to Matlock and Derby to Buxton markets (including the markets to intermediate stations) to supplement the through traffic.

Is there really more than an hourly bus worth of passengers that would use stations between Derby and Stockport? Passengers from Derby to Stockport would be able to use the quicker Dore South journey.

 

[zwk500]

Is the issue "Manchester-Derby" or "re-connecting local stations"?

The issue is "reopening the railway", unfortunately.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the issue "Manchester-Derby" or "re-connecting local stations"?

Manchester-Derby can be done via Sheffield if the demand exists. If paths were an issue you could portion work with the Norwich. I guess the fact that there isn't one means the demand is unlikely to be sufficient given how easy it would be to do it.

The only local station worth reopening would be Bakewell, and only just. Better bus connections are an easier way to deal with that, but they're not bad as they are.

 

[NER1621]

3) So why not improve the bus service instead?
Because most people hate buses. It doesn't matter if they're electric, diesel, hydrogen, hybrid or powered by the wings of a thousand angels. Nor does it matter if they have leather seats, USB ports, WiFi, a champagne bar or a jacuzzi. The travelling public will refuse to go on them.

Better bus connections are an easier way to deal with that, but they're not bad as they are.

Moving from the particular to the general may I please commend @Pyewipecarshed’s comment above to the house. The reality is that no-one outside London will make any medium or long-term life decisions (job, house, leisure travel, education etc) based on the existence of a bus route. Bitter experience has taught people that promises about the future existence of a bus route are utterly worthless. Proposing more or better bus routes as an alternative to improving rail services simply does not fly with the general public, and taking bus patronage on a transport corridor as indicative of the likely demand for better public transport in that corridor is a waste of time. Railways (and tramways) get people out of cars and induce demand: buses don’t, and until they are regulated as railways are they never will.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Moving from the particular to the general may I please commend @Pyewipecarshed’s comment above to the house. The reality is that no-one outside London will make any medium or long-term life decisions (job, house, leisure travel, education etc) based on the existence of a bus route.

People living in a rural area (which Bakewell is) will own a car. Regardless of whether there's an hourly 2 car DMU or not.

 

[Topological]

The problem is that even if you took every single person who lives on the route out of their cars then you are still left with reduced demand.

The end to end figures are more reliable because there are trains, with one connection. That is more useful. The lack of a direct train is telling.

Finally, the government do not want people moving to the Peak District.