Peaks and Dales line - feasibility study submitted

[Merle Haggard]

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.

Even if the Manchester service starting back at Leicester would hardly be an improvement changes-wide - and, as you say, no improvement on the present change at Nottingham - and any suggestion of increasing services, such as that, on the MML always results in operating experts claiming 'no paths!'

I was surprised, living on the East side of Northampton that there was never any publicity about the Manchester service that called at Wellingborough (a ten-minute drive for me, and also possible by bus). At the time, the enquiry office at Northampton suggested for travel to Manchester catching an all-stations train to Birmingham then trying your luck on XC, where at least you were finally heading in the right direction. Better (or any) publicity might have increased demand. At the same time advert hoardings in Northampton were subjected to, bizarrely, a campaign by Chiltern Railways.

 

[The Planner]

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.

Not sure that adds up. The HS2 trains that replace the St Pancras ones are still running between Derby and Clay Cross, so whilst you have created capacity Derby - Trent - St Pancras, you have no difference on the bit you need?

 

[Zomboid]

Not sure that adds up. The HS2 trains that replace the St Pancras ones are still running between Derby and Clay Cross, so whilst you have created capacity Derby - Trent - St Pancras, you have no difference on the bit you need?

It was a crayon sandwich... Though how up against it is Derby to Ambergate? 2 MML, 2XC and the Matlock, plus whatever freight there might be is all I can see. If that's "full" then I would suggest that upgrades that create space might be possible.

 

[The Planner]

It was a crayon sandwich... Though how up against it is Derby to Ambergate? 2 MML, 2XC and the Matlock, plus whatever freight there might be is all I can see. If that's "full" then I would suggest that upgrades that create space might be possible.

The problem will be that supporters of this are assuming all the heavy freight and the reverse empties will go this way, whereas they are all Erewash currently.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Leicester to Manchester probably would need a full HST in and of itself.

 

[Zomboid]

The problem will be that supporters of this are assuming all the heavy freight and the reverse empties will go this way, whereas they are all Erewash currently.

Fair enough, those kind of trains would mostly be better off going down Erewash, unless they already turn right at Clay Cross.

 

[Topological]

Leicester to Manchester probably would need a full HST in and of itself.

Leicester has 10 carriages to Sheffield per hour. The 810s mean capacity will be increased further. At the time of Rio it was 8 carriages as a single HST per hour.

There were enough people on the Project Rio trains to justify a 158. Note here, justify and not fill. Given the growth in passenger numbers, you could probably have 3 carriages now, but that would mean 100% growth. Add in Derby (much smaller than Leicester) and maybe you could get a 4 carriage 158 with space for growth. That would still be less than half a HST. This is only hourly.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Leicester to Manchester probably would need a full HST in and of itself.

!! + building on @Topological ‘s response.

Did you ever use the Rio service, Rob? I was living in Northamptonshire at the time and occasionally used it for weekday business journeys to Manchester. (I.e. NOT during weekend blockades of the WCML, which is where Rio really scored.)
There never seemed to be more than about 30 passengers on the train north of Leicester, of which only a portion actually joined/ alighted at Leicester.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

!! + building on @Topological ‘s response.

Did you ever use the Rio service, Rob? I was living in Northamptonshire at the time and occasionally used it for weekday business journeys to Manchester. (I.e. NOT during weekend blockades of the WCML, which is where Rio really scored.)
There never seemed to be more than about 30 passengers on the train north of Leicester, of which only a portion actually joined/ alighted at Leicester.

I tried to use one of the Rio workings, only to find they (or at least the one I was aiming for) didn't call at Derby (where I'd have connected in to it). This is understandable given the main purpose of the service was to backfill lost capacity from London to Manchester due to the West Coast upgrade works, but if it was a permanent service you'd almost certainly call additionally at Derby, and probably one or two other places too.
Given the St Pancras situation any revival of an East Midlands to Manchester service via Dore South curve wouldn't be a revival of Rio, it'd be an hourly (at best) 2-4 car unit starting at Leicester or maybe Nottingham. My gut feeling is that if such a service ran, it would do okay numbers-wise, whether it would be the best use of resources is another thing however.

If the Peak route still existed, that's the sort of service it would justify, maybe with 2tph (one stopper from Derby, one semi-fast). The fact that it doesn't exist means that any untapped demand for East Mids to Manchester (to whatever extent it exists) would be better served by using the route that does exist. Therefore the case for reopening Buxton to Matlock can't rely on that metric alone.

 

[yorksrob]

Leicester has 10 carriages to Sheffield per hour. The 810s mean capacity will be increased further. At the time of Rio it was 8 carriages as a single HST per hour.

There were enough people on the Project Rio trains to justify a 158. Note here, justify and not fill. Given the growth in passenger numbers, you could probably have 3 carriages now, but that would mean 100% growth. Add in Derby (much smaller than Leicester) and maybe you could get a 4 carriage 158 with space for growth. That would still be less than half a HST. This is only hourly.

That's an interesting point in itself. The Manchester - Scotland service in the early 1990's consisted of a few 158's each way a day I think. Now look at them !

Perhaps given time, the NW/Midlands market would now also grow over a couple of decades.

!! + building on @Topological ‘s response.

Did you ever use the Rio service, Rob? I was living in Northamptonshire at the time and occasionally used it for weekday business journeys to Manchester. (I.e. NOT during weekend blockades of the WCML, which is where Rio really scored.)
There never seemed to be more than about 30 passengers on the train north of Leicester, of which only a portion actually joined/ alighted at Leicester.

Sadly not Dr Hoo (being relatively skint at the time and never having been based in Manchester). What I'd give to be able to get HST first class back up North again these days though !

I go back to my point made to @Topological above. Not long ago, Manchester - Scotland was seen as a niche market. Now it's booming.

 

[Topological]

That's an interesting point in itself. The Manchester - Scotland service in the early 1990's consisted of a few 158's each way a day I think. Now look at them !

Perhaps given time, the NW/Midlands market would now also grow over a couple of decades.



Sadly not Dr Hoo (being relatively skint at the time and never having been based in Manchester). What I'd give to be able to get HST first class back up North again these days though !

I go back to my point made to @Topological above. Not long ago, Manchester - Scotland was seen as a niche market. Now it's booming.

Manchester to Scotland has been grown quite considerably from the days when it was a CrossCountry service. We saw massive growth on the Manchester - Preston corridor in the time I was travelling. However, you are talking about Manchester, its commuter belt and two large cities in Scotland.

In the same time period the WCML service has improved massively too. There are now two Pendolinos per hour going north, when that was only a few trains per day doing the whole route. There has been big growth on the whole WCML. So yes, growth is possible.

However, in this case we are talking about an existing Nottingham - Manchester service (which has grown from single 158 to double 158 in the same time) and so you are not starting from nothing, or tapping into anything like the numbers that exist for a Manchester - Scotland service.

Given Manchester - Nottingham only commands a double 158, what evidence is there to say that Derby could support more? There is also the question of why the railway would spend money providing when a change at Sheffield or Stoke exists. The first would be a service via Dore South and then it is only about the ability to attract custom that is not presently changing.

Essentially, the focus should be on growing with the existing infrastructure, not smashing through the Peak District on a line that would be no faster than via Dore South.

 

[Pigeon]

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

Not with only one train every 2 hours, certainly.

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.

If they would be doing quite well then that is what justifies putting them back. The "cost" is simply the penalty incurred for the mistake of removing them in the first place. It is a separate thing, and not something that has to be "justified" by carrying some thoroughly unrealistic and infeasible level of traffic.

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?

That is a thoroughly unacceptable situation in any case and needs sorting out on its own account. It is therefore not directly relevant, but it does connect to the point that we have thrown away a tremendous amount of capacity on the Midland system by one cut and another over the years, most of it rather less conspicuously than the Matlock route, and that route is only one of a number of bits and pieces that need to be put back.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

This thread is a perfect microcosm of why we very rarely manage to reopen, or build new, railway lines in this country.
A proposal is made; everyone immediately starts shouting. The naysayers make sure they shout the loudest. It doesn't matter how logically the case in support is put forward, it's just met with a wall of "no, no, no"!! If any supporters choose not to engage in the mudslinging they are accused of "running away" from the "debate".

As someone who uses the Hope Valley line several times a week I can tell you that it is full! It cannot accommodate a Derby to Manchester service, at least not with any hope (no pun intended!) of reliability. And that is the case no matter how many times it is suggested in this thread.
Yes, you can spend millions on capacity upgrades, as was done between Dore and Bamford a couple of years ago- the scheme should have gone to either Chinley or New Mills South, but the money ran out (!)
But any extra capacity created soon fills up; the work done so far has made very little difference to the reliability of services on the route.

Ultimately we need more lines rather than tweaking the existing ones constantly.

 

[squingo44]

Doesn’t this proposal make much more sense as a completely new alignment, rather than building track over the old alignment? With electrification, it would be possible to build a railway through the hills with straighter lines and steeper gradients.

You’d simply need to connect Matlock to the freight railway next to the limestone quarry at the Great Rocks Dale, and you could have a new mainline for freight and passenger services.

Add stations at Darley Dale, Rowsley, Bakewell, Ashford in the Water, and Taddington, and you could support a local passenger service as well.

Add a connection between Ambergate and the Erewash Valley line and you’d have a new Cross-country line connecting from the East of England to Manchester via Grantham and Nottingham.

Now there’s all sorts of unanswered questions about bottlenecks at either end of this system, but surely there’s some value in opening a new main line connecting the East Midlands to Manchester, for both freight and passenger services?

 

[Magdalia]

The naysayers make sure they shout the loudest. It doesn't matter how logically the case in support is put forward, it's just met with a wall of "no, no, no"!! If any supporters choose not to engage in the mudslinging they are accused of "running away" from the "debate".

The so called logical cases in support rarely if ever include the logical essentials of how much their schemes will cost and how they will be paid for.

In any investment project the costs come first and the benefits come later, often much later. In the meantime, the costs have to be covered by borrowed money, at 4-5% a year interest, and the benefits eventually have to pay back the amount that was borrowed.

When interest rates are high, the financial incentives are for less expensive projects that deliver benefits quickly, which is why capacity upgrades are a better financial deal than more expensive projects that take a long time to deliver benefits.

Yes, you can spend millions on capacity upgrades, as was done between Dore and Bamford a couple of years ago- the scheme should have gone to either Chinley or New Mills South, but the money ran out (!)

Given that the money has already run out on a much less expensive project, there isn't going to be money for an even grander and more expensive project that takes even longer to deliver any benefits.

 

[dosxuk]

As someone who uses the Hope Valley line several times a week I can tell you that it is full!

It's full, because of the limitations of the current signalling and lack of passing loops, oh, and both Manchester and Sheffield having no space for additional services. Those problems could be solved by improving the signalling, installing additional loops, extending platforms to support longer trains and improving the infrastructure at the major stations at each end. All of that would be orders-of-magnitude cheaper than rebuilding the route between Matlock and Buxton.

It doesn't matter how logically the case in support is put forward, it's just met with a wall of "no, no, no"!!

The problem is the only logical case being put forward is "if you build it they will come". And in a world where infinite money doesn't exist, things have to be prioritised - there are plenty of things the billions this would cost could be spent on to improve public transport in the Peaks area.

 

[The Planner]

This thread is a perfect microcosm of why we very rarely manage to reopen, or build new, railway lines in this country.
A proposal is made; everyone immediately starts shouting. The naysayers make sure they shout the loudest. It doesn't matter how logically the case in support is put forward, it's just met with a wall of "no, no, no"!! If any supporters choose not to engage in the mudslinging they are accused of "running away" from the "debate".

As someone who uses the Hope Valley line several times a week I can tell you that it is full! It cannot accommodate a Derby to Manchester service, at least not with any hope (no pun intended!) of reliability. And that is the case no matter how many times it is suggested in this thread.
Yes, you can spend millions on capacity upgrades, as was done between Dore and Bamford a couple of years ago- the scheme should have gone to either Chinley or New Mills South, but the money ran out (!)
But any extra capacity created soon fills up; the work done so far has made very little difference to the reliability of services on the route.

Ultimately we need more lines rather than tweaking the existing ones constantly.

Where is the evidence of a overwhelming need for Derby Manchester though? Why will Matlock Buxton/Chinley be the better option? None of these are naysaying responses, these are fundamental questions that would require answers. Capacity soon fills up as that is what the schemes are for. As others have noted, is the expecation that existing services either side are joined up, or are they new services that arent fitting anyway? We do need more lines, but why is an old one the correct answer?

 

[Topological]

With the talk of paths on Hope Valley, would the Project Rio path still work?

Trains leave Sheffield at xx10 (Transpennine) xx14 (Northern) and xx43 (EMR). The logic being that the EMR catches up the Northern just before the Northern turns off at Chinley. From memory Project Rio slotted in just behind the EMR?

I may be wrong though, because I remember some occasions where the Rio got 20 minutes early, suggesting it was between the Northern and the EMR and that the Northern did not exist for some reason in that specific hour/day combination.

 

[squingo44]

It's patently clear that such a rail link will eventually be needed, because our ultimate aim is to decarbonise our transport network. The Manchester-East Midlands corridor may not be the busiest, but it's certainly not insignificant - and a heavy rail link is the right solution.

 

[Topological]

It's patently clear that such a rail link will eventually be needed, because our ultimate aim is to decarbonise our transport network. The Manchester-East Midlands corridor may not be the busiest, but it's certainly not insignificant - and a heavy rail link is the right solution.

But why not a Peak District tunnel that connects Manchester and Sheffield (the biggest market) and joins into the HS2 East line for the East Midlands services? The HS2 East line will be needed too.

Constraining to old alignments through sparse populations will never be the decarbonisation answer. For sparse populations decarbonisation = electric bus.

 

[squingo44]

Where is the evidence of a overwhelming need for Derby Manchester though? Why will Matlock Buxton/Chinley be the better option? None of these are naysaying responses, these are fundamental questions that would require answers. Capacity soon fills up as that is what the schemes are for. As others have noted, is the expecation that existing services either side are joined up, or are they new services that arent fitting anyway? We do need more lines, but why is an old one the correct answer?

I don't think that just reopening the old line is a complete solution tbh. A new alignment would probably better anyway, and a connection to the Erewash Valley line would improve the benefits of the project significantly as well.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 May 2026 ==

But why not a Peak District tunnel that connects Manchester and Sheffield (the biggest market) and joins into the HS2 East line for the East Midlands services? The HS2 East line will be needed too.

Constraining to old alignments through sparse populations will never be the decarbonisation answer. For sparse populations decarbonisation = electric bus.

In short, because we'll need both!

 

[Topological]

I don't think that just reopening the old line is a complete solution tbh. A new alignment would probably better anyway, and a connection to the Erewash Valley line would improve the benefits of the project significantly as well.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 May 2026 ==


In short, because we'll need both!

With a HS style connection Derby to Manchester would be far quicker than via Matlock so why do we need via Matlock? The peak district needs a reliable network of electric buses and battery trains to the focal point cities (Buxton to Manchester, Matlock to Derby). There is nothing between Matlock and Buxton and no need to make any interventions to the infrastructure to support battery operation on the existing rail (except perhaps chargers at Matlock and Buxton depending on battery ranges)

 

[squingo44]

There is nothing between Matlock and Buxton

This isn't true, though, is it? There aren't a lot of people in the Wye Valley, but they have their own transport needs. In the past, the Matlock route was closed down in favour the Hope Valley route because the A6 provided an alternative transport solution. But these days, we know that road traffic isn't a sustainable solution. For the purposes of local journeys within the valley, long-distance passenger journeys into the valley, and of course, freight journeys, the Wye Valley will ultimately need a railway.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that there are other priorities, and that the Derby-Manchester passenger traffic flow can be more effectively served by a new high-speed rail link between Sheffield and Manchester. But that those aren't reasons against the need for this railway to be built - simply an evaluation of relative priority.

 

[Zomboid]

We do need more lines, but why is an old one the correct answer?

This always gets me. Everything is looked at through the lens of putting back something Victorian, seemingly because it was there and some bridges and earthworks haven't yet been destroyed.

Meanwhile the projects which are actually being built (HS2 and EWR) are starting from a bosh l blank(ish) sheet and their alignments are designed to meet the requirements of the 21st century. EWR has used an old one for the part that's been built so far of course - but I don't think that technically closed in the first place.

 

[Topological]

This isn't true, though, is it? There aren't a lot of people in the Wye Valley, but they have their own transport needs. In the past, the Matlock route was closed down in favour the Hope Valley route because the A6 provided an alternative transport solution. But these days, we know that road traffic isn't a sustainable solution. For the purposes of local journeys within the valley, long-distance passenger journeys into the valley, and of course, freight journeys, the Wye Valley will ultimately need a railway.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that there are other priorities, and that the Derby-Manchester passenger traffic flow can be more effectively served by a new high-speed rail link between Sheffield and Manchester. But that those aren't reasons against the need for this railway to be built - simply an evaluation of relative priority.

How many people? The transport needs of the locals are about getting from their villages to the nearest towns and then onwards. These journeys are better provided by smaller, more flexible, modes of transport than trains.

The reason for closure is not the important factor here. We used to think the car was the answer. We were wrong. We used to think we did not need to provide an NHS, or that burning coal was a good idea. Times change. The question is whether the line now is in the right place, does the right job, or whether there are better alternatives (such as higher speed via Sheffield) that would be more efficient.

 

[yorksrob]

Manchester to Scotland has been grown quite considerably from the days when it was a CrossCountry service. We saw massive growth on the Manchester - Preston corridor in the time I was travelling. However, you are talking about Manchester, its commuter belt and two large cities in Scotland.

In the same time period the WCML service has improved massively too. There are now two Pendolinos per hour going north, when that was only a few trains per day doing the whole route. There has been big growth on the whole WCML. So yes, growth is possible.

However, in this case we are talking about an existing Nottingham - Manchester service (which has grown from single 158 to double 158 in the same time) and so you are not starting from nothing, or tapping into anything like the numbers that exist for a Manchester - Scotland service.

Given Manchester - Nottingham only commands a double 158, what evidence is there to say that Derby could support more? There is also the question of why the railway would spend money providing when a change at Sheffield or Stoke exists. The first would be a service via Dore South and then it is only about the ability to attract custom that is not presently changing.

Essentially, the focus should be on growing with the existing infrastructure, not smashing through the Peak District on a line that would be no faster than via Dore South.

The existing Nottingham/Manchester service is shared by lots of people travelling to and from Yorkshire. NW/E Mids feels to me very much like a corridor that has more to grow.

I also disagree with the description of "smashing through" the Peak district. It was smashed through during the 19th century.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

Doesn’t this proposal make much more sense as a completely new alignment, rather than building track over the old alignment? With electrification, it would be possible to build a railway through the hills with straighter lines and steeper gradients.

You’d simply need to connect Matlock to the freight railway next to the limestone quarry at the Great Rocks Dale, and you could have a new mainline for freight and passenger services.

Add stations at Darley Dale, Rowsley, Bakewell, Ashford in the Water, and Taddington, and you could support a local passenger service as well.

Add a connection between Ambergate and the Erewash Valley line and you’d have a new Cross-country line connecting from the East of England to Manchester via Grantham and Nottingham.

Now there’s all sorts of unanswered questions about bottlenecks at either end of this system, but surely there’s some value in opening a new main line connecting the East Midlands to Manchester, for both freight and passenger services?

Some great points here, but getting planning permission for a new alignment through the peak district and finding the money for such would be problematic in the extreme.

It's full, because of the limitations of the current signalling and lack of passing loops, oh, and both Manchester and Sheffield having no space for additional services. Those problems could be solved by improving the signalling, installing additional loops, extending platforms to support longer trains and improving the infrastructure at the major stations at each end. All of that would be orders-of-magnitude cheaper than rebuilding the route between Matlock and Buxton.


The problem is the only logical case being put forward is "if you build it they will come". And in a world where infinite money doesn't exist, things have to be prioritised - there are plenty of things the billions this would cost could be spent on to improve public transport in the Peaks area.

To be honest if you build it they WILL come!
However proving the economic case and making it public is something that the promoters of the scheme should be/hopefully are doing; the issue here is that some forum members seem to be expecting other forum members to research and present the economic case in full in this very thread!

We do need more lines, but why is an old one the correct answer?

In this specific case because trying to get a new line granted in the peak district would be nigh on impossible, whereas there is a possibility that you might be allowed to reopen an old line whose infrastructure already exists.

Yes, you could tunnel a new line under it all, but we seem to be incapable of building anything so ambitious in this country (a) in a reasonable timescale, and (b) for a sensible price.
Without naming any HS2's...erm, sorry, specific examples

 

[Mr. SW]

If establishing a new route through the peaks from Mat to Bux, it has to be borne in mind that the original route was very much dictated by heavy opposition from very highly influential people indeed. This why, in the northbound direction, the line climbs steeply and veers sharply to the left at Rowsley to avoid the Chatsworth estate. Presumably the covered way at Haddon was considered the lesser of two evils. So if considering a new route this needs to be thought through very carefully and where exactly the tracks are going to be laid. Incidentally, the pipeline known a the Derwent Aqueduct goes through the landscaped park right past Chatsworth House. I wonder how much the Duke of Devonshire was compensated for that?

 

[Bald Rick]

It doesn't matter how logically the case in support is put forward, it's just met with a wall of "no, no, no"!!

That is, of course, poor form.

But, in this case, there isn’t a logical case.

Some great points here, but getting planning permission for a new alignment through the peak district and finding the money for such would be problematic in the extreme.

In principle there is essentially no difference in the process or complexity betweem obtaining planning consent for a new railway on an old alignment and a new railway on a new alignment. And the build cost is likely to be within a few %.

 

[furnessvale]

The original intention of the Monsal Trail was to preserve the alignment of the railway for future reuse. Since then, the Peak District National Park authority have changed their position to support retaining the cycle path at the expense of a reopened railway.

In doing so they support the mass invasion of the Wye Valley and other locations by 4x4s with cycles on roof racks and other congestion causing vehicles.

Any idea that the Monsal Trail is environmentally friendly is for the birds.