Peaks and Dales line - feasibility study submitted

[yorksrob]

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.

*Perhaps that's one of the problems with our way of building railways.

There seems to be a market for travel between the North West and East Midlands. Sheffield certainly seems the long way round.

 

[Topological]

Once it becomes new line territory then surely a Manchester to Sheffield tunnel is the most useful option. High(ish) speed and direct under the hills. Connected into HS2 East then you have Sheffield to Derby, Sheffield to Nottingham and Sheffield to Leicester upgraded and fast connection to Manchester.

I do not think for a second that you would build a high(ish) speed link between Manchester and Sheffield, but if the aim was better journeys from the East Midlands to Manchester then that tunnel would be more of the solution than anything through Matlock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

*Perhaps that's one of the problems with our way of building railways.

It was done because the structures were not in acceptable condition. Would you want a dangerous railway?

There seems to be a market for travel between the North West and East Midlands. Sheffield certainly seems the long way round.

Journey time is more important than how far it is in terms of track mileage. Do you have evidence that there is significant demand for North West-East Midlands such that a journey with one change at Sheffield twice an hour isn't acceptable to the extent that an entirely new railway is justified?

There are many, many new builds I'd do before that, e.g. Metrolink to Leigh. Even taking over the East Lancs to Rawtenstall coupled with major housing development along the line would be more justified (but isn't proposed to be fair)!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2026 ==

Once it becomes new line territory then surely a Manchester to Sheffield tunnel is the most useful option.

If you were going to tunnel under the Pennines, a road tunnel (allowing the closure of the Snake Pass to all but cyclists on the subsiding sections and the rest to be for access only) would be the thing to build. I suppose if you were going to build an 8 lane motorway as a Pennine base tunnel it would be cheap to tack a 2 track 125mph electrified railway on too though.

 

[Topological]

If you were going to tunnel under the Pennines, a road tunnel (allowing the closure of the Snake Pass to all but cyclists on the subsiding sections and the rest to be for access only) would be the thing to build. I suppose if you were going to build an 8 lane motorway as a Pennine base tunnel it would be cheap to tack a 2 track 125mph electrified railway on too though.

A road tunnel would be great. Though some care is needed about where in Sheffield it ends. The M67 on the Manchester side is easy enough to line up.

Given the M62 is not 8 lanes for the full length, I assume 3 lanes in each direction and a hard shoulder would be sufficient. (It may be that you were counting the hard shoulder as a lane). You could build with 2 lanes in each direction, but Newport demonstrates only too well what happens when 2 lanes is not enough.

With electric cars tunnels are a little more realistic.

The resulting rail journeys would be much faster than present, and would kill off any talk of going through the old tracks of the Peak District completely. Even the Hope Valley line might not be long for this world if the tunnel was built.

 

[YorksLad12]

If you were going to tunnel under the Pennines, a road tunnel (allowing the closure of the Snake Pass to all but cyclists on the subsiding sections and the rest to be for access only) would be the thing to build. I suppose if you were going to build an 8 lane motorway as a Pennine base tunnel it would be cheap to tack a 2 track 125mph electrified railway on too though.

A road tunnel would be great. Though some care is needed about where in Sheffield it ends. The M57 on the Manchester side is easy enough to line up.

Given the M62 is not 8 lanes for the full length, I assume 3 lanes in each direction and a hard shoulder would be sufficient. (It may be that you were counting the hard shoulder as a lane). You could build with 2 lanes in each direction, but Newport demonstrates only too well what happens when 2 lanes is not enough.

This sounds like a resurrection of the old M67 plan (which is now the M67 and the A616). But with a new tunnel. I can't see a new tunnel being more than 2 lanes + hard shoulder though (definitely need one of those in a long tunnel) in each direction, unless you were expecting a lot of freight to move off the M62. But plenty of scope to tunnel out additional bores on each side or down the middle for trains. Let me look down the back of the sofa for some loose change.

 

[Topological]

This sounds like a resurrection of the old M67 plan (which is now the M67 and the A616). But with a new tunnel. I can't see a new tunnel being more than 2 lanes + hard shoulder though (definitely need one of those in a long tunnel) in each direction, unless you were expecting a lot of freight to move off the M62. But plenty of scope to tunnel out additional bores on each side or down the middle for trains. Let me look down the back of the sofa for some loose change.

Good point. I used the wrong M number for the Hyde stub. Although the road is the A57, the motorway is the M67. (I will edit my original post)

Would be very expensive, but much better value than anything on the Matlock line.

 

[Zomboid]

It was done because the structures were not in acceptable condition. Would you want a dangerous railway

I saw something in another thread about how the RA on the borders line was really low because the old structures weren't up to anything more, and rebuilding them would have killed the project. Fine for a DMU service and no freight, but EWR is built for much heavier traffic and needs to be better.

Maybe the existing Bakewell line structures would be ok with a single track carrying MUs, in which case it would only really be a local railway for local people and the stone trains will have to carry on heading north.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

At least Penrith - Keswick and Aberystwth - Carmarthen have both gone for a “long sleep”, perhaps because by far the best value solution (bus services integrated to the rail ticketing system) have been implemented with great success.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2026 ==

There seems to be a market for travel between the North West and East Midlands.

But is there?

It’s easy enough to find out. How many people travel today from Nottingham to Manchester / Liverpool each year onthe direct services? I reckon 250k at best.

It’s reasonable to assume that Derby would have a smaller demand (being a smaller city, with many fewer students for example), and that a decent proportion of that demand is already travelling by rail and changing at Sheffield, for which there is already essentially a 2tph service.

So this proposal might generate say 100k genuinely new to rail passengers from Derby to Manchester a year, plus those to Bakewell. By some distance, there would be far better uses of a billion or two of public money than trying to win this benefit. Especially when most of those 100k could be captured by the alternative of a direct service via the Hope Valley at much lower capital cost.

 

[wilbers]

At least Penrith - Keswick and Aberystwth - Carmarthen have both gone for a “long sleep”, perhaps because by far the best value solution (bus services integrated to the rail ticketing system) have been implemented with great success.

As it happens Keswick just been in the news for the integrated ticket now being all year and not just summers.

Passengers can now book tickets on the Penrith to Keswick “virtual railway” all year round

Passengers can now book tickets on the Penrith to Keswick “virtual railway” all year round

penrith.town

Record numbers of visitors have travelled to the Lake District by public transport after Avanti West Coast created a “virtual railway station” at Keswick, new figures show.

The addition of Keswick as a destination in rail journey planners means one ticket covering both rail and bus transport can be used to travel to the region. From this week the integrated ticket will be available all year round following a trial for the past two summers.

 

[Bald Rick]

As it happens Keswick just been in the news for the integrated ticket now being all year and not just summers.

Passengers can now book tickets on the Penrith to Keswick “virtual railway” all year round

Passengers can now book tickets on the Penrith to Keswick “virtual railway” all year round

penrith.town

Indeed, that story is what triggered my earlier comment!

I’d like to think that the introduction of the through ticket was a result of my comments proposing exactly that in a thread several years back, but I’m not that big-headed

 

[yorksrob]

At least Penrith - Keswick and Aberystwth - Carmarthen have both gone for a “long sleep”, perhaps because by far the best value solution (bus services integrated to the rail ticketing system) have been implemented with great success.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2026 ==



But is there?

It’s easy enough to find out. How many people travel today from Nottingham to Manchester / Liverpool each year onthe direct services? I reckon 250k at best.

It’s reasonable to assume that Derby would have a smaller demand (being a smaller city, with many fewer students for example), and that a decent proportion of that demand is already travelling by rail and changing at Sheffield, for which there is already essentially a 2tph service.

So this proposal might generate say 100k genuinely new to rail passengers from Derby to Manchester a year, plus those to Bakewell. By some distance, there would be far better uses of a billion or two of public money than trying to win this benefit. Especially when most of those 100k could be captured by the alternative of a direct service via the Hope Valley at much lower capital cost.

I guess they had the same sort of question about passenger demand from Yorkshire to the North West in the 1980's.

Since then we've had the revival of the S&C, Copy Pit, the Little North Western is as busy as its ever been.

Agreed, by itself it probably wouldn't justify a new route, but taken together with the local traffic and freight.

 

[Topological]

I guess they had the same sort of question about passenger demand from Yorkshire to the North West in the 1980's.

Since then we've had the revival of the S&C, Copy Pit, the Little North Western is as busy as its ever been.

Agreed, by itself it probably wouldn't justify a new route, but taken together with the local traffic and freight.

I hope those are not the examples that motivate Matlock to Buxton?

Copy Pit does ok, but it is still only 3 carriages per hour. The others...

 

[AndrewE]

Copy Pit does ok, but it is still only 3 carriages per hour. The others...

... would carry a lot more people if there was a more frequent service, especially the line from Carnforth to Skipton!

 

[Tetchytyke]

... would carry a lot more people if there was a more frequent service, especially the line from Carnforth to Skipton!

2-hourly is about right for the Little North Western. It's never going to be a major railway line.

I guess they had the same sort of question about passenger demand from Yorkshire to the North West in the 1980's.

Since then we've had the revival of the S&C, Copy Pit, the Little North Western is as busy as its ever been.

None of those lines actually closed though, despite the best efforts of BR in the 1970s and 1980s, which changes things a lot.

As others have said throughout this topic (and others), the Buxton-Matlock line is in the category of lines which would now do quite well if the line had stayed open, even just for freight. The other classics of Bere Alston-Tavistock, Skipton-Colne, and Penrith-Keswick are the same. But, with the best will in the world, none of them are ever going to do so well as to justify the cost of rebuilding a railway effectively from scratch.

Bakewell, tourist hotspot that it is, has a population of under 4,000 people.

Copy Pit does ok, but it is still only 3 carriages per hour.

Copy Pit is 2tph: one to Manchester, one to Leeds.

 

[Topological]

Copy Pit is 2tph: one to Manchester, one to Leeds.

Sorry, yes, there is the "new" train that uses the Todmorden Curve. I say new because I do not like to think how long it has been since that started running.

Even the two services do not give enough passengers to justify a reopening.

 

[AndrewE]

2-hourly is about right for the Little North Western. It's never going to be a major railway line.

but the 3-hour gaps after 2pm (1447/1746/2030 then 2131) from Lancaster have stopped me using it several times in the past. I can't be the only one.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Even the two services do not give enough passengers to justify a reopening.

I suppose the Todmorden curve was technically a re-opening, just a very short one. And it has been successful, both for Burnley but also to allow the Leeds-Manchester Victoria trains to be speeded up.

But yes, if Copy Pit had closed entirely I doubt there would be a strong enough business case to re-build it, even now. The fact that it stayed open for freight meant that, come the early 80s, it wasn't prohibitively expensive for the Provincial Building Society to pay BR to run a few passenger trains up it.

 

[Topological]

I suppose the Todmorden curve was technically a re-opening, just a very short one. And it has been successful, both for Burnley but also to allow the Leeds-Manchester Victoria trains to be speeded up.

But yes, if Copy Pit had closed entirely I doubt there would be a strong enough business case to re-build it, even now. The fact that it stayed open for freight meant that, come the early 80s, it wasn't prohibitively expensive for the Provincial Building Society to pay BR to run a few passenger trains up it.

Yes, Todmorden curve is exactly the sort of re-opening that can be done with new track. The Halton Curve for Runcorn to Chester is similar.

The Copy Pit line allows the collective populace of Accrington, Burnley and the surrounding towns to access both Manchester as the local regional centre AND Leeds as the Yorkshire regional centre. It would be interesting to compare the places offered a direct Manchester service by the Todmorden Curve with those who would gain a Manchester service with Peaks and Dales. My mind says the two are comparable, but that there would be a stronger bias towards travelling to Manchester in Accrington and Burnley than Derby and Matlock.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, Todmorden curve is exactly the sort of re-opening that can be done with new track. The Halton Curve for Runcorn to Chester is similar.

The Halton Curve wasn't a reopening, it was a resignalling (and adding crossovers?) of an active railway to allow 2-way operation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, Todmorden curve is exactly the sort of re-opening that can be done with new track. The Halton Curve for Runcorn to Chester is similar.

Halton Curve wasn't new track. It was upgraded to allow the hourly service, but it had always technically stayed open to passenger traffic with a Parliamentary service.

It would be interesting to compare the places offered a direct Manchester service by the Todmorden Curve with those who would gain a Manchester service with Peaks and Dales. My mind says the two are comparable, but that there would be a stronger bias towards travelling to Manchester in Accrington and Burnley than Derby and Matlock.

Burnley and Accrington gained a direct Manchester service and, combined, they have a population of c. 200,000 people. Manchester is obviously the closest and largest economic draw to those towns.

By contrast, Matlock's population is about 10,000 and Bakewell's is about 4,000. For both towns, Manchester isn't necessarily the most obvious or the closest economic draw. Matlock, especially, looks more towards Derby, Nottingham, and Sheffield, all of which are considerably closer to it than Manchester is.

 

[Zomboid]

Halton Curve wasn't new track. It was upgraded to allow the hourly service, but it had always technically stayed open to passenger traffic with a Parliamentary service

Technically true, but in terms of providing a useful service to anyone at all, it was as good as closed too passengers.

 

[Topological]

Halton Curve wasn't new track. It was upgraded to allow the hourly service, but it had always technically stayed open to passenger traffic with a Parliamentary service.


Burnley and Accrington gained a direct Manchester service and, combined, they have a population of c. 200,000 people. Manchester is obviously the closest and largest economic draw to those towns.

By contrast, Matlock's population is about 10,000 and Bakewell's is about 4,000. For both towns, Manchester isn't necessarily the most obvious or the closest economic draw. Matlock, especially, looks more towards Derby, Nottingham, and Sheffield, all of which are considerably closer to it than Manchester is.

I was aligning them more with Derby because if Accrington and Burnley are seen as having bigger potential demand to Manchester than Derby (the point being that population is not the only measure, natural draw to regional centres must be interacted with population), then the limited trains that operate between Accrington, Burnley and Victoria simply provide further evidence against Peaks and Dales.

Ultimately, there are those of us that say "try a service via Dore South" and see if there is an unmet demand for direct services, recognising that there is not. On the other side are those that will throw any line in to try to justify reopening, but then run when confronted with the actual truth of those lines. Copy Pit is by far the least abstract of the examples used for the latter camp.

 

[yorksrob]

I hope those are not the examples that motivate Matlock to Buxton?

Copy Pit does ok, but it is still only 3 carriages per hour. The others...

If you look at it as carrying local and longer distance regional, you could probably put all three of those example passenger flows together !

 

[Topological]

If you look at it as carrying local and longer distance regional, you could probably put all three of those example passenger flows together !

Which line are you using? Which numbers?

Even the whole set combined are nothing like enough to open the Peaks and Dales line. Then you are using Leeds and Manchester as destinations (versus just Manchester) and using a huge part of Lancashire as the equivalent of Derby (and remember we are not talking about Derby, we are talking about people in Derby who refuse to change at Sheffield OR Stoke)

A few rural branchlines with 3 carriages per hour maximum will not mkae a strong case.

What is it that you are taking from the lines you put forward?

 

[yorksrob]

Which line are you using? Which numbers?

Even the whole set combined are nothing like enough to open the Peaks and Dales line. Then you are using Leeds and Manchester as destinations (versus just Manchester) and using a huge part of Lancashire as the equivalent of Derby (and remember we are not talking about Derby, we are talking about people in Derby who refuse to change at Sheffield OR Stoke)

A few rural branchlines with 3 carriages per hour maximum will not mkae a strong case.

What is it that you are taking from the lines you put forward?

Local traffic, regional city to city traffic (Manchester vs Derby and Leicester etc) and region to region traffic (NW to the East Midlands).

 

[Topological]

Local traffic, regional city to city traffic (Manchester vs Derby and Leicester etc) and region to region traffic (NW to the East Midlands).

None of the examples provide any support?

Indeed, even recognising that the Copy Pit has a much stronger economic gravity at play, the Copy Pit line does not offer support to the numbers needed to reopen.

So what is it that these examples offer to the case for reopening? What is it that everyone else is missing?

 

[Merle Haggard]

Bearing in mind that, for passengers at MML stations South of Kettering 2 changes are at present required to get to Derby and one from/to Kettering and Harborough 'because there are no paths for a direct service" what service do the proponents suggest? Just Derby - Manchester trains (so then three changes)? or diverting one Sheffield per hour to Manchester (which might not be universally popular) and only 2 changes? What other alternatives are there?

 

[yorksrob]

None of the examples provide any support?

Indeed, even recognising that the Copy Pit has a much stronger economic gravity at play, the Copy Pit line does not offer support to the numbers needed to reopen.

So what is it that these examples offer to the case for reopening? What is it that everyone else is missing?

The system already undervalues such improvements so no argument is going to change that.

 

[Topological]

Bearing in mind that, for passengers at MML stations South of Kettering 2 changes are at present required to get to Derby and one from/to Kettering and Harborough 'because there are no paths for a direct service" what service do the proponents suggest? Just Derby - Manchester trains (so then three changes)? or diverting one Sheffield per hour to Manchester (which might not be universally popular) and only 2 changes? What other alternatives are there?

Is this Connect to Kettering then MML to Nottingham? If so Nottingham to Manchester already exists which would mean 2 changes to Manchester.

IF there is a demand for a direct Derby to Manchester then that would need to be a new service. Whether you would extend that I do not know. The obvious extensions are Leicester and Nottingham, but since Nottingham already has a Manchester train it would be Leicester. That might be ok for local demand between Leicester and Derby so that the MML directs could be sped up.

Project Rio was brilliant for Leicester to Manchester, it showed how fast the journey could be. Sad there was not sufficient desire/demand to keep things going.

 

[Zomboid]

After having a crayon sandwich for lunch, how about...

1) HS2 builds a spur to Tamworth on the Birmingham to Derby line. Derby, Sheffield and Leeds to London journeys are now served that way
2) This frees up space on the MML as the Sheffield paths can be used for a different purpose
3) The Bakewell line somehow gets the money together to be built
4) Manchester - Bakewell - Derby - London trains can now run (I'm going to gloss over the Stockport to Manchester bit here), probably on a calling everywhere basis as there's no need to provide fast end to end journey times; HS2 does that.