Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Just a simple question for those who have better knowledge of the services then me but if it was feasible to reinstate the line, could we instead recast the timetable for the stopping services at both ends of the line and instead introduce a basic though service so basically have the existing services join together and run though to the terminus at Derby and Manchester as that would be more useful then some random IC service from A to B that will never happen.
Scope for re-casting (aka 'tail wagging the dog') at the Manchester end probably very limited unless there is a 'permanent' reduction in services post-Covid. Not much better at the Derby end, even after the re-modelling, especially if trains run through to Nottingham or elsewhere.
A lot of people advocating re-opening can't make their minds up between a route via Buxton (which was never a regular through service anyway, rather two termini alongside each other) or Chinley/New Mills (which lacks the real 'destination pull' factor).
Scope for re-casting (aka 'tail wagging the dog') at the Manchester end probably very limited unless there is a 'permanent' reduction in services post-Covid. Not much better at the Derby end, even after the re-modelling, especially if trains run through to Nottingham or elsewhere.
A lot of people advocating re-opening can't make their minds up between a route via Buxton (which was never a regular through service anyway, rather two termini alongside each other) or Chinley/New Mills (which lacks the real 'destination pull' factor).
That's why instead of proposing IC services, I asked if there's anything that could be done to improve the local train service in terms of connectivity.
Keeping a open mind on what could be feasible and what's absolutely never going to happen etc, thank you for your input.
Scope for re-casting (aka 'tail wagging the dog') at the Manchester end probably very limited unless there is a 'permanent' reduction in services post-Covid. Not much better at the Derby end, even after the re-modelling, especially if trains run through to Nottingham or elsewhere.
A lot of people advocating re-opening can't make their minds up between a route via Buxton (which was never a regular through service anyway, rather two termini alongside each other) or Chinley/New Mills (which lacks the real 'destination pull' factor).
Scope for re-casting (aka 'tail wagging the dog') at the Manchester end probably very limited unless there is a 'permanent' reduction in services post-Covid. Not much better at the Derby end, even after the re-modelling, especially if trains run through to Nottingham or elsewhere.
A lot of people advocating re-opening can't make their minds up between a route via Buxton (which was never a regular through service anyway, rather two termini alongside each other) or Chinley/New Mills (which lacks the real 'destination pull' factor).
The sensible thing would be to have a triangular junction, so that the stopper to Matlock could continue to Buxton, whilst inter-regional services between the North West and the Midlands could go direct via Chinley.
I can't see the line from Matlock to the junctions north of Miller's Dale ever being restored (perhaps unfortunately — dinner through the Peak on a summer's evening was rather an agreeable experience), but if it were, would it be out of the question to run to Manchester through a new station in Buxton on or by the connecting curve and then over the ex-LNW line? Folk history was always that that line was hopelessly unsuitable for main-line traffic, and I suppose the lengthy banks at about 1:60 certainlhy made it so in the days of steam. But modern motive power could eal comfortably with the gradients. So has anyone seen a diagram of the curvature? Are the very low speeds permitted because of really severe curvature, or are they just a hangover from a time when nothing more could be expected uphill or would be desirable downhill?
I agree that it seems unlikely that the line from Chinley / Peak Forest to Matlock is unlikely to be reopened in the foreseeable future. IF it ever did reopen, I think the major target would be to provide a fastish through service between the Manchester area, Peak District and the East Midlands. This would probably also require the re-doubling of at least part of the Matlock to Ambergate section. and paying Peak Rail to move to an alternative location. The principal services would be something like:
Manchester Piccadilly - Stockport - Chapel in le Frith Central - (Bakewell) - Matlock Bath - Derby - Loughborough - Leicester, destination beyond Leicester to be decided, but possibly Peterborough rather than London.
I suggest Matlock Bath rather than Matlock, because the former is much more an attraction for tourists, and always seems busier. I was hesitant about including Bakewell because I seem to recall that the station was not well situated relative to the town. Intermediate stations between Matlock & Derby would retain an hourly local service.
I was hesitant about including Bakewell because I seem to recall that the station was not well situated relative to the town. Intermediate stations between Matlock & Derby would retain an hourly local service.
I agree that it seems unlikely that the line from Chinley / Peak Forest to Matlock is unlikely to be reopened in the foreseeable future. IF it ever did reopen, I think the major target would be to provide a fastish through service between the Manchester area, Peak District and the East Midlands. This would probably also require the re-doubling of at least part of the Matlock to Ambergate section. and paying Peak Rail to move to an alternative location. The principal services would be something like:
Manchester Piccadilly - Stockport - Chapel in le Frith Central - (Bakewell) - Matlock Bath - Derby - Loughborough - Leicester, destination beyond Leicester to be decided, but possibly Peterborough rather than London.
I suggest Matlock Bath rather than Matlock, because the former is much more an attraction for tourists, and always seems busier. I was hesitant about including Bakewell because I seem to recall that the station was not well situated relative to the town. Intermediate stations between Matlock & Derby would retain an hourly local service.
If a semi fast service was ever introduced between Buxton and Matlock, Matlock would be served rather than Matlock Bath.
Matlock generates over 220,000 journeys per annum compared to
Matlock Bath with 68,000 journeys per annum
Matlock Station is also home to a modest bus station with a small selection of local buses serving it.
Bakewell would certainly require a station, it is only about 5 minutes walk to the town centre, where there is a decent network of buses serving the Peak District.
Of course, all purely acedemic is the line will never be reopened because of the outcry from walkers and cyclists who use the Monsal Trail, the vast majority of which, ironically, travel by car to get there!
For those who don't know Bakewell it is probably worth explaining that the station site is up a hill, on the edge of the town, accessed by what is effectively a dead-end residential road that suffers from chronic problems with 'nuisance parking' preventing normal two-way traffic. There is no real scope for significant new parking near the station or direct access by buses. The town is the largest in the Peak District National Park but only has a population of 4,000-5,000. Allowing for the usual exigencies of crossing busy roads and pavements often crowded with tourists I would say that is ten minutes' walk from the centre and bus stops (and have timed it specifically).
Somehow it always reminds me of places like Okehampton, Ilfracombe and Ventnor in terms of the old station being 'invisible' and 'awkward' even if it isn't exactly 'in the middle of nowhere'.
Rowsley (not Peak Rail's Rowsley South, tucked away beyond a recycling depot and industrial units) would be much more central and accessible to its settlement but Rowsley is only a small village and hardly a priority call for a strategic/regional semi-fast service.
Chapel-en-le-Frith Central would be much better than that town's currently rather remote ex-LNW station but strangely never seems to be hyped as one of the project's potential bigger wins (but it isn't on the direct way to Buxton of course).
2 tracking throughout, with 4 tracking in the Ambergate area and from Buxton and Chinley towards Manchester, and if there is space to accomodate the popular Monsal Trail on the two track sections.
Passing loop at Bakewell and grade separtion of Ambergate South Jn and North Jn, Reopen Manchester Central with "Tram-Trains" from East Didsbury(Parrs Wood) and Ringway. Conversion of overhead wires to 25 KV AC 50 HZ and wiring extending to Cheadle Heath(for local stoppers, and maybe wiring to Sheffield, Market Harbrough, Corby, Nottingham, Leeds, Doncaster),
and a south to west chord at Hazel Grove. I think it should reopen
No need for another through route. Bakewell should get a service but it can get a bus to Buxton, with tourism (walking and cycling) all advertised and made possible.
2tph Buxton to Southport
2tph Bakewell to Nottingham
No need for another through route. Bakewell should get a service but it can get a bus to Buxton, with tourism (walking and cycling) all advertised and made possible.
2tph Buxton to Southport
2tph Bakewell to Nottingham
Bakewell as it is now will be tight for two tracks but should be the final Northern terminus for Peak Rail from Matlock, shared with EMR. There are two tracks at Darley Dale for passing.
Beyond there Class 93s on a semi electrified Hope Valley route will allow more freight to use existing tracks from the Buxton end.
2 tracking throughout, with 4 tracking in the Ambergate area and from Buxton and Chinley towards Manchester, and if there is space to accomodate the popular Monsal Trail on the two track sections.
Passing loop at Bakewell and grade separtion of Ambergate South Jn and North Jn, Reopen Manchester Central with "Tram-Trains" from East Didsbury(Parrs Wood) and Ringway. Conversion of overhead wires to 25 KV AC 50 HZ and wiring extending to Cheadle Heath(for local stoppers, and maybe wiring to Sheffield, Market Harbrough, Corby, Nottingham, Leeds, Doncaster),
and a south to west chord at Hazel Grove. I think it should reopen
The 750 V DC electrification currently on the Manchester Metrolink. Loops at Bakewell would be used for freight coming from the quarries in the Peak District, from Hope/Edale(sometimes) and stoppers on the line
The 750 V DC electrification currently on the Manchester Metrolink. Loops at Bakewell would be used for freight coming from the quarries in the Peak District, from Hope/Edale(sometimes) and stoppers on the line
The bit of Metrolink from East Didsbury(Parrs Wood) to Firswood, where the old/new dive unders are. I would reopen Manchester Central and reinstate more track from Firswood to the old delta junction and this way, Trafford Park freights can avoid Manchester City Centre(i.e Castlefield) and a south to west chord at Adswood can allow freight to get to the WCML without depending on Castlefield.
The bit of Metrolink from East Didsbury(Parrs Wood) to Firswood, where the old/new dive unders are. I would reopen Manchester Central and reinstate more track from Firswood to the old delta junction and this way, Trafford Park freights can avoid Manchester City Centre(i.e Castlefield) and a south to west chord at Adswood can allow freight to get to the WCML without depending on Castlefield.
My timetable for services out of Manchester Central
1tph London St Pancras International
East Didsbury, Cheadle Heath, a newly built Hazel Grove High Level, Chinley, Bakewell, Matlock, Derby, Leicester, Market Harbrough, Kettering, Bedford and Luton Airport Parkway
1tph Stopper to Derby,
All stations to Derby
My timetable for services out of Manchester Central
1tph London St Pancras International
East Didsbury, Cheadle Heath, a newly built Hazel Grove High Level, Chinley, Bakewell, Matlock, Derby, Leicester, Market Harbrough, Kettering, Bedford and Luton Airport Parkway
1tph Stopper to Derby,
All stations to Derby
My timetable for services out of Manchester Central
1tph London St Pancras International
East Didsbury, Cheadle Heath, a newly built Hazel Grove High Level, Chinley, Bakewell, Matlock, Derby, Leicester, Market Harbrough, Kettering, Bedford and Luton Airport Parkway
1tph Stopper to Derby,
All stations to Derby
1tph Derby - Matlock - Buxton (effectively an extension of the Derby - Matlock service).
1 tph semi-fast Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Piccadilly (and extended south of Derby if appropriate).
Requires nothing more than a Matlock - Peak Forest rebuild and a reversing siding at Buxton (on the assumption that direct access from Ashwood Dale to Buxton station is no longer practical. (When I have time I'll look at what would be needed between Derby and Chinley to get a workable timetable)
No need to:
Close a conference centre
Reinstate city centre junctions
Reopen Central
Mess with Metrolink
So you're reopening Manchester Central for two trains per hour?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'll offer you an alternative:
1tph Derby - Matlock - Buxton (effectively an extension of the Derby - Matlock service).
1 tph semi-fast Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Piccadilly (and extended south of Derby if appropriate).
Requires nothing more than a Matlock - Peak Forest rebuild and a reversing siding at Buxton (on the assumption that direct access from Ashwood Dale to Buxton station is no longer practical. (When I have time I'll look at what would be needed between Derby and Chinley to get a workable timetable)
No need to:
Close a conference centre
Reinstate city centre junctions
Reopen Central
Mess with Metrolink
Rebuilding the tracks from Ambergate to Chinley would be be necessary to take fast passenger service and modern heavy freight.
Ambergate to Matlock is a one train in section single track using single platforms. Signalling is a major expense.
Matlock to Rowsley has been rebuilt to Rowsley South to heritage line requirements.
At Rowsley the bridge over the A6 needs to be rebuilt and embankments probably heightened. The Haddon Hall estate will probably oppose the line through the cut and cover tunnel - they've opposed the Monsal Trail going through.
The area around Bakewell Station is now offices and light industry. Hassop Station houses a cafe, book shop and cycle hire centre to use the trail along the trackbed. There will be (there already is) fierce opposition to a freight railway running through the cuttings and tunnels.
The tunnels were last used for rail traffic 50 years ago. The same goes for the Monsal and Millers Dale viaducts. Many of the embankments and cuttings have deteriorated- rabbits alone have done a lot of damage!
Nothing that can't be fixed with a few hundred millions. But for 2 passenger trains an hour and a few freight services would it be value for money? Bear in mind many of the freight trains leaving Buxton and Hope would stilll leave via the Hope Valley or Guide Bridge for destinations to the north.
Those advocating the reopening of this route should walk the full length to see for themselves how reinstating a line that been closed for so long is bit more than they may have imagined.
1tph Derby - Matlock - Buxton (effectively an extension of the Derby - Matlock service).
1 tph semi-fast Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Piccadilly (and extended south of Derby if appropriate).
Requires nothing more than a Matlock - Peak Forest rebuild and a reversing siding at Buxton (on the assumption that direct access from Ashwood Dale to Buxton station is no longer practical. (When I have time I'll look at what would be needed between Derby and Chinley to get a workable timetable)
Frankly, the viability and thus long-term survival of those existing rural and minor regional rail routes that escaped the Beeching railway modernisation/restructuring of the 1960s is questionable. Re-opening a route through the Peak District is hardly a good idea in the current financial situation that the railways now find themselves in, when other surviving ex-MR routes built through wild country, i.e. the lines north of Skipton, are financial basket cases worthy of closure on economic grounds.
The most cost-effective way to encourage public transport use between Matlock and Buxton is to market the existing High Peak TP bus service as part of the rail network, to run every 30 minutes (in the daytime, hourly evenings) and to connect with trains at Matlock and Buxton stations, with a 30 minute rail service provided to both these stations. For the Matlock branch, this would require investment in a passing (?dynamic) loop between Cromford and Whatstandwell stations, but given that the line was originally double track, this would not be prohibitively expensive compared to the costs of re-opening the long-closed line between Matlock and Buxton.
Frankly, the viability and thus long-term survival of those existing rural and minor regional rail routes that escaped the Beeching railway modernisation/restructuring of the 1960s is questionable. Re-opening a route through the Peak District is hardly a good idea in the current financial situation that the railways now find themselves in, when other surviving ex-MR routes built through wild country, i.e. the lines north of Skipton, are financial basket cases worthy of closure on economic grounds.
The area around Bakewell Station is now offices and light industry. Hassop Station houses a cafe, book shop and cycle hire centre to use the trail along the trackbed. There will be (there already is) fierce opposition to a freight railway running through the cuttings and tunnels.
The tunnels were last used for rail traffic 50 years ago. The same goes for the Monsal and Millers Dale viaducts. Many of the embankments and cuttings have deteriorated- rabbits alone have done a lot of damage!
Nothing that can't be fixed with a few hundred millions. But for 2 passenger trains an hour and a few freight services would it be value for money? Bear in mind many of the freight trains leaving Buxton and Hope would stilll leave via the Hope Valley or Guide Bridge for destinations to the north.
Those advocating the reopening of this route should walk the full length to see for themselves how reinstating a line that been closed for so long is bit more than they may have imagined.
Two passenger trains an hour plus freight is a very respectable level of usage, and you would probably get more trains per million than some of the billion pound projects that are going ahead.
I have less sympathy for walkers and cyclists who don't want to give up a route that was built for trains in the first place, than I do for the bunnies that will be displaced.
This thread has crept away from coordinating bus and rail timetables back onto the perennial topic of restoration of the rail route through the Peak.
I've used both the buses and trains when walking the length of the old line. The advantage of the bus is the greater number of stops where people actually live and shop. They do stop fairly near the intermediate stations, but don't invite interchanges.
Inevitably all the stops impact the end to end journey times. The buses are well used by local residents for short hops and can be quite well loaded for some sections at some times of day. Operators must have considered fine tuning of the timetable and fares to meet the demand.
The train carries more and is quicker. (The bus station in Derby is some distance from the railway station.) There is always going to be difficulty matching bus and train arrivals and departures on infrequently operated services. Its easy if both services operate every 3-5 minutes. The further you get from that the less likely an interchange will happen. Hourly means my bus needs to .be timed to drop me at least 10 minutes before the train arrives to allow for any delay to the bus. That means the bus will have been long gone to pick up any arriving on the train.
This is an issue for all potential interchanges everywhere. The answer is usually seen in rural areas as cars!
A reminder that to get a train from. Matlock to Buxton required a change at Millers Dale.
The bit of Metrolink from East Didsbury(Parrs Wood) to Firswood, where the old/new dive unders are. I would reopen Manchester Central and reinstate more track from Firswood to the old delta junction and this way, Trafford Park freights can avoid Manchester City Centre(i.e Castlefield) and a south to west chord at Adswood can allow freight to get to the WCML without depending on Castlefield.
2 tracking throughout, with 4 tracking in the Ambergate area and from Buxton and Chinley towards Manchester, and if there is space to accomodate the popular Monsal Trail on the two track sections.
Passing loop at Bakewell and grade separtion of Ambergate South Jn and North Jn, Reopen Manchester Central with "Tram-Trains" from East Didsbury(Parrs Wood) and Ringway. Conversion of overhead wires to 25 KV AC 50 HZ and wiring extending to Cheadle Heath(for local stoppers, and maybe wiring to Sheffield, Market Harbrough, Corby, Nottingham, Leeds, Doncaster),
and a south to west chord at Hazel Grove. I think it should reopen
My nearest metrolink stop is Firswood. I must admit it provides a great service to Manchester, Manchester Airport, Rochdale and East Didsbury. How is a service to Derby going to help me, and I doubt that the frequency is going to get better for me or anyone who lives in my neighbourhood.
My timetable for services out of Manchester Central
1tph London St Pancras International
East Didsbury, Cheadle Heath, a newly built Hazel Grove High Level, Chinley, Bakewell, Matlock, Derby, Leicester, Market Harbrough, Kettering, Bedford and Luton Airport Parkway
1tph Stopper to Derby,
All stations to Derby
Honestly, Im not fond of the fact that from a tramline serving me with 15tph to Manchester (pre-COVID) would be reduced to a heavy rail 1tph train to Derby and 1tph to Manchester. I also think Chorlton should be served by trains to St Pancras International. Although I cant find figures of usage for Chorlton as a Tram stop, however Chorlton has a population of 30,000 and Whalley Range has just over 10,000. So I think i would disagree with your timetable because Derby is not a destination that I think requires a direct service for me in the suburbs but probably for Manchester itself, would be great. The knock-on effect is according to your plans my frequency will worsen.
(Edit: All in all, i support the idea of linking Buxton to Matlock and in improving connectivity in the High Peak)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
...and this is true with literally every reopening thread. There's always going to be an irreconcilable difference, so it's refreshing to see it actually spelled out here. (The next step is to try and stop the OP from getting pelted with verbal crayons...)
I have to admit: I find it very bizarre that people would suggest reopening Peak Rail without including a Bakewell station. I mean, it's not that distant from the town, is it? And it's the Peak District's tourist centre. It'd be like reopening the Penrith-Workington line without including a station at Keswick.
I also find it unconscionable that someone's actually advocating for closing the Settle & Carlisle? Oh RailUK, how you never fail to make me wish I liked ferries instead.
...and this is true with literally every reopening thread. There's always going to be an irreconcilable difference, so it's refreshing to see it actually spelled out here. (The next step is to try and stop the OP from getting pelted with verbal crayons...)
I have to admit: I find it very bizarre that people would suggest reopening Peak Rail without including a Bakewell station. I mean, it's not that distant from the town, is it? And it's the Peak District's tourist centre. It'd be like reopening the Penrith-Workington line without including a station at Keswick.
I also find it unconscionable that someone's actually advocating for closing the Settle & Carlisle? Oh RailUK, how you never fail to make me wish I liked ferries instead.
I must admit, it was the position on the network West of Skipton that led me to conclude that there was nothing to discuss, rather than the reopening per se.
I agree that bringing Bakewell onto the network would be a great benefit of the project.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
