Peaks and Dales line - feasibility study submitted

[Bald Rick]

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.

I have done, three times, none of which were in London. I may be a minority, but to say no-one takes such a decision based on bus routes can not be true.

 

[Topological]

I have done, three times, none of which were in London. I may be a minority, but to say no-one takes such a decision based on bus routes can not be true.

Me too (well once) and then I got a car.

 

[Zomboid]

We chose the place we live because there's a decent (2 per hour for most of the day) bus service, which allows my 2 adult, 2 children family to have just one car. Almost every household here does have at least one car, but the bus being adequate means there are options and many many people use it.

If it were less frequent then there's a good chance we wouldn't have chosen to live here, and the bus company have made several changes (for better and for worse) during the time we've been here, but it remains a very well used route.

I would imagine the population of this message board is more predisposed to use buses than average, though!

But it comes back to what is this proposed railway for. Local traffic and the small number of people who want to travel between Derby and Manchester but can't face the idea of changing at Sheffield/ Tamworth/ Stoke? That's not going to get it done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hulley's going bust didn't help the situation in Bakewell, but that's a bit of an unusual situation and I think it still has a fairly good service mostly to/from the Sheffield/Chesterfield side. It's a bit lacking in evening services but there is one late journey on the 218 from Sheffield at 2210.

 

[zwk500]

Hulley's going bust didn't help the situation in Bakewell, but that's a bit of an unusual situation and I think it still has a fairly good service mostly to/from the Sheffield/Chesterfield side. It's a bit lacking in evening services but there is one late journey on the 218 from Sheffield at 2210.

The last bus to Bakewell from Derby is the 22:15 departure from Derby Bus Station (departing Belper at 22:38, Matlock at 23:20).
In the reverse direction there's a 21:35 from Bakewell Matlock Street to Derby Bus Station, or a 22:38 to Belper which at 23:28 arrival to Belper Bus Garage is tight but doable (allowing for delays and a 5min walk) for the 23:43 train from Belper to Derby.

(6.1 The Sixes services on Bustimes.org: https://bustimes.org/services/61-the-sixes-derby-belper-wirksworth-matlock-bakew)

 

[yorksrob]

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.

No. If you're building a railway, you need to aim to serve as many markets as possible - regional and local passenger, freight.

This missing link has the potential to serve all three of these (even if it never becomes another InterCity route from London.

 

[bramling]

It might even be actively negative. The Monsal Trail benefits a huge number of people compared to a DMU once an hour. It is an active travel corridor and an important leisure route. You could do it single track and retain access I suppose, but still.

I wouldn’t be letting the Monsal Trail stand in the way of a rail route, if there was a proven case for reinstatement of one.

As an active travel route it is pretty deficient, given that it doesn’t go all the way into Buxton, and still to a large extent fades into nothing at Bakewell. Despite a lot of murmuring there doesn’t seem to be any serious plan to fix all this, at the moment extension east of Bakewell is blocked by an awkward landowner, for example, which has been a continuing issue for many years.

Agreed it’s a popular leisure facility, but this is mainly for about 7 hours a day, and focussed towards the summer months and days when the weather is good. There are three other cycle trails in the area which fulfil a similar purpose.

 

[YorksLad12]

I wouldn’t be letting the Monsal Trail stand in the way of a rail route, if there was a proven case for reinstatement of one.

As an active travel route it is pretty deficient, given that it doesn’t go all the way into Buxton, and still to a large extent fades into nothing at Bakewell. Despite a lot of murmuring there doesn’t seem to be any serious plan to fix all this, at the moment extension east of Bakewell is blocked by an awkward landowner, for example, which has been a continuing issue for many years.

Agreed it’s a popular leisure facility, but this is mainly for about 7 hours a day, and focussed towards the summer months at that. There are three other cycle trails in the area.

Which begs the question, would the awkward landowners be more agreeable to a heavy rail link (or does the former heavy rail route not cross their lands)?

 

[Zomboid]

A government sponsored heavy rail line would have compulsory purchase capability, if it came to it.

 

[Bald Rick]

A government sponsored heavy rail line would have compulsory purchase capability, if it came to it.

So could a bike track.

 

[bramling]

So could a bike track.

One presumes the reason this hasn’t been done for the Haddon Estate is because the local council (s) can’t or won’t fund the whole thing?

I remember exploring Haddon Tunnel in about 2009 when extension of the Monsal Trail was “planned”. Here we are in 2026 and it doesn’t seem any closer to coming to fruition. I guess we should be pleased that at least the other four tunnels have happened now.

Worth remembering that unlike some of the other cycle trails in the area (Manifold has been established for very many years), the Monsal Trail in its current form has only been established for a relatively short time. The surge in use has only arisen since the four tunnels were reopened.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Hulley's going bust didn't help the situation in Bakewell

It didn’t make that much of a difference, tbh, as Hulleys mostly ran the low-margin rural stuff. The main routes through Bakewell were, and are, the 6.1 from Derby and the TransPeak from Buxton-Derby.

The TransPeak could benefit from earlier and later buses, but otherwise Bakewell isn’t that cut off: the last bus from Sheffield is 2210 and the last bus from Derby is 2215.

 

[Jim the Jim]

Anecdotal, but ... I did a fair deal of walking in the Matlock area last week, and the path along Peak Rail was considerably busier than any of the other rural footpaths. So I am not sure railway tracks are as off-putting as some seem to think!

 

[tbtc]

Some people might think this a weak cause, given the fairly obvious problems with it, e.g.

. You'd need to spend huge money on any reopening but the infrastructure budget here would be massive, given all of the bridges/ tunnels etc
. It's a long line through fairly empty countryside, where the largest place has only five thousand residents (and even if "serving Bakewell" is your aim, local demand is significantly more about Sheffield/ Chesterfield)
. There's effectively no daily commuter market opened up by this (people point to simple reopenings from struggling towns like Ebbw Vale/ Ashington/ Galashiels to the nearest big city but this scheme would be nothing like these)
. The southern end of the MML is full with no prospect of additional paths (or longer platforms at St P)
. Most of the benefits highlighted on this thread could be achieved by increasing capacity of the short Hope Valley services). Any claim for a Manchester service would be low down the pecking order
. If an alternative Manchester - London service is so necessary (and can't be provided by proposed OAO to Victoria or extended LNW trains) then HS2 will be a game changer

Yet the people fixated on reopening rural routes at any cost are undeterred by such awkward facts

So we've got a funny mixture of Reasons Why This Line Must Reopen that seem ... a little contradictory

One minute it'll be freight only, the next minute the freight is so insignificant that it can apparently run at night (although midnight freight isn't an option for Hope Valley!)

We can have a cheap single track line, but one accommodating local stoppers, St Pancras expresses and lumbering freights - with hand operated points

As mentioned earlier, a '1h30' Manchester - Dore South curve - Derby would be so quiet that it would inevitably be diverted into Sheffield Midland, but a '1h30' (at best) from Manchester to Derby through Bakewell would be so busy and important that we must spend at least a billion on this

It doesn't matter how contradictory it all sounds, just keep throwing more and more 'justifications' into the mix - the reasons don't really matter if you've made up your mind that it MUST happen (you just need to find a "problem")

 

[deltic08]

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

Through trains are more attractive than having to change. Changing at Nuneaton, Stoke or Sheffield might be quicker marginally but a through train from principal MML stations could be a winner.
LNER lost my regular leisure travel from Northallerton to Edinburgh to see family because there is no longer a through train. An additional 7 minute change at Newcastle between trains is not what a disabled passenger needs with luggage.

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.

Not everybody has the use of a car. Only 18% of spinster women have a car, 32% of widowed women have a car, only 43% of married pensioner couples, 10% over 85 years old. Under 17s do not own a car and expensive insurance limits under 22 year olds owning a car so students at college or university use trains to visit home during term time. As I said above, disabled prefer through trains. Wives are left without a car in one car families when the husband is at work. I know this will not fill a train every hour between St Pancras and Manchester but is a consideration.

How many more trains will optimise the hourly Sheffield-Derby line? Are we near this point in a mix of fast passenger trains, stopping trains and freight trains.? If so, no more stone trains will be able to run this way losing revenue to quarries, FOCs and Network Rail. Quarries will just use road transport clogging up the A6 and other Peaks roads. If this happens then NR will be instructed to reinstate this route and re quadruple Ambergate to Derby. Stone trains a quite profitable so £1billion should be repaid over the Government yardstick of 60 years with inflation.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

But it comes back to what is this proposed railway for. Local traffic and the small number of people who want to travel between Derby and Manchester but can't face the idea of changing at Sheffield/ Tamworth/ Stoke? That's not going to get it done.

Except it wouldn't be a small number of people! Take the Ashington line, linking a one-horse town where they shot the horse several decades ago to a big city.
It's absolutely smashing the passenger forecasts. Derby is bigger than Ashington (and at least one of its horses survives) and Manchester is bigger than Newcastle.

So could a bike track.

It's more likely that a railway would warrant a compulsory purchase order than a cycle path tbh.

 

[Topological]

But it comes back to what is this proposed railway for. Local traffic and the small number of people who want to travel between Derby and Manchester but can't face the idea of changing at Sheffield/ Tamworth/ Stoke? That's not going to get it done.

Except it wouldn't be a small number of people! Take the Ashington line, linking a one-horse town where they shot the horse several decades ago to a big city.
It's absolutely smashing the passenger forecasts. Derby is bigger than Ashington (and at least one of its horses survives) and Manchester is bigger than Newcastle.

It's more likely that a railway would warrant a compulsory purchase order than a cycle path tbh.

That is a different reason.

However, Ashington is in the commuter belt of Newcastle. Derby is NOT in the commuter belt of Manchester. Ashington is more like Glossop or Hadfield (and those two stayed open). If you want to really push it Ashington is like Chinley or Buxton (Again still open).

If any of the Manchester commuter lines were closed, then reopening them would bring customers like Ashington.

It should also be remembered that Ashington is filling a sprinter every 30 minutes. That is not build a whole new line territory. Stick trains on some existing infrastructure, perhaps, but completely new line, no.

Set up the Dore South train and see how it gets on. IF that proves people are willing to travel 1 hour 30 from Derby to Manchester then... Except you still would not do anything because you can run the same time via Dore South than spening any money on a new line.

 

[yorksrob]

If any of the Manchester commuter lines were closed, then reopening them would bring customers like Ashington.

The one to Leigh was. I expect that that would also be filling sprinters if it had been reopened instead of a busway.

 

[Zomboid]

The one to Leigh was. I expect that that would also be filling sprinters if it had been reopened instead of a busway.

Probably would, and maybe we'll live to see it filling trams instead.

 

[The Planner]

But it comes back to what is this proposed railway for. Local traffic and the small number of people who want to travel between Derby and Manchester but can't face the idea of changing at Sheffield/ Tamworth/ Stoke? That's not going to get it done.

Except it wouldn't be a small number of people! Take the Ashington line, linking a one-horse town where they shot the horse several decades ago to a big city.
It's absolutely smashing the passenger forecasts. Derby is bigger than Ashington (and at least one of its horses survives) and Manchester is bigger than Newcastle.

It's more likely that a railway would warrant a compulsory purchase order than a cycle path tbh.

Also factor in the ticket price for the Ashington line is very nicely subsidised to keep it very low.

 

[Topological]

The one to Leigh was. I expect that that would also be filling sprinters if it had been reopened instead of a busway.

Yes. Leigh is an example of a line which closed.

There were other lines, though most of them duplicated routes and so did not leave any major places cut off from the network.

Marginal for whether I should have included them as being closures of Manchester commuter lines were Rawtenstall, Bacup, Heywood, Middleton and Chorlton-cum-Hardy.

I actually messed up my point last night though. Ashington still had track and was able to be re-opened. None of these Manchester examples do/did.

 

[yorksrob]

Probably would, and maybe we'll live to see it filling trams instead.

Indeed, who knows !

Yes. Leigh is an example of a line which closed.

There were other lines, though most of them duplicated routes and so did not leave any major places cut off from the network.

Marginal for whether I should have included them as being closures of Manchester commuter lines were Rawtenstall, Bacup, Heywood, Middleton and Chorlton-cum-Hardy.

I actually messed up my point last night though. Ashington still had track and was able to be re-opened. None of these Manchester examples do/did.

Leigh clearly had enough trackbed left to install major infrastructure. Investigation needs to be made as to why rail costs so much more than road (signalling can't be all of it).

 

[Topological]

Leigh clearly had enough trackbed left to install major infrastructure. Investigation needs to be made as to why rail costs so much more than road (signalling can't be all of it).

Certainly, there was trackbed at the country end. From memory, they could have got a bit closer to the city. However, there was no clear line to plug into the mainline network and certainly no track to the standard of the Ashington line.

Maybe the more relevant example is Portishead in Bristol. That line is getting new track added for part of the route. The result will be a commuter line for Bristol.

However, this then brings us back to the whole fallacy of Ashington as an argument. None of the places that would be on a reopened peaks and dales line are, or would be desirable as, commuter towns for Manchester.

 

[Zomboid]

Dartmoor is probably a better comparison, but that was an exercise in refurbishment, and whilst it's doing well on its own terms, it's still nowhere near "build a new railway" territory.

 

[zwk500]

No. If you're building a railway, you need to aim to serve as many markets as possible - regional and local passenger, freight.

This missing link has the potential to serve all three of these (even if it never becomes another InterCity route from London.

The issue is that the more markets you serve, the more compromises you have to make between the optimal configuration for any 1 market. You then need to decide if your railway is a 'jack of all trades, master of none', or one optimised for a particular market with enough consideration given to other traffic. Each choice has a big impact on the potential costs and realisable benefits.

It is of course to build either option and make a positive case, but it really helps the Strategic Chapter of the Business Case if the proposal has a firm grip on the problem, and is therefore able to identify why it's better than other solutions to that problem.
Unfortunately the problem at the moment seems to be 'the railway was closed'.

Investigation needs to be made as to why rail costs so much more than road

For comparable spec, does it? In 2005, Alistair Darling reported to the House of Commons that:

The average cost of building one mile of new(a) motorway is £24 million per mile, (b) dual lane carriageway is £13 million per mile, (c) conventional two lane road is £8 million per mile.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2005-03-08/debates/5b9f8c11-5a06-4166-b3d5-d9d3e2992805/RoadBuilding

Bicester-Bletchley cost c.£750m for the 21 miles, or £36m/mile. In 2005 Prices (CPI, not construction), that'd be about £20m/mile. It's a 100mph double-track W12 railway so is comparable to a Dual Carriageway (£23m in 2025 prices using CPI).

Inflation Calculator

Adjust historic UK project costs using CPI data. Compare old quotes, budgets and allowances with today’s money, with construction-specific caveats.

costestimator.co.uk

For comparison,
2005: | 2026:
£8m | £14m
£13m | £23m
£24m | £42m

 

[Topological]

Dartmoor is probably a better comparison, but that was an exercise in refurbishment, and whilst it's doing well on its own terms, it's still nowhere near "build a new railway" territory.

Okehampton also had a population of 9112 at the 2021 census. Bakewell is only half that size.

The core point here is that Dartmoor is a single-track line which existed and just needed upgrading for passengers.

The peaks and dales equivalent to anything that has been put up as an example would be to bring passenger trains to the freight loop and then add a station near the A6 (I have not looked at the exact geography to check potential sites).

Unlike all the other reopenings, including Dartmoor, there is no set up for a commuter line in the Peak District. There are also no obvious areas to expand the number of houses around the stations to increase passenger numbers as there are at Okehampton. There are not the current number of residents and the desire to increase the number of residents is not there.

 

[dosxuk]

For those hoping to use this as a solution to the "full" Hope Valley line - a(nother) dose of reality - it will be far cheaper to upgrade the Hope Valley with additional loops and improved signalling than it will be to rebuild Matlock - Buxton.

 

[D365]

I’d be interested to know, in the short history of the Speculative Discussions subforum, the rate per year at which each of the Peak District reopenings (Matlock - Buxton, Woodhead, Colne - Skipton) has been debated

 

[yorksrob]

I’d be interested to know, in the short history of the Speculative Discussions subforum, the rate per year at which each of the Peak District reopenings (Matlock - Buxton, Woodhead, Colne - Skipton) has been debated

I think the Matlock line has had the edge in recent years. Strikes me as being the potentially most useful of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the Matlock line has had the edge in recent years. Strikes me as being the potentially most useful of them.

I'd agree that's probably the least unuseful (!). The case for Bakewell is very poor indeed, you would be building a whole line* just to serve Bakewell, as if you want a through service from Manchester to Derby it is already possible to do it as a portion of either the Norwich or the Cleethorpes, the fact it isn't being done would suggest it's not viable to do it, particularly as the Project Rio Manchester-London service ran for a bit so tested Manchester-East Midlands demand, albeit 20 years ago now!

* As East West Rail has demonstrated, a reopening of this nature is basically new build, it's just easier to acquire the land. Most underbridges have been replaced on that for instance.