Buxton to Matlock - The missing link

[zwk500]

Speaking of that route, my plans would see Manchester Central reopen to accomodate the route and you have to remember East Didsbury(Parrs Wood) to the new/old Firswood dive-unders is Metrolink

Why would you close the conference/exhibition centre that's generating far more economic activity now than it ever did (or ever will) as a station? And if the whole argument about Manchester-Derby via Bakewell is the direct distance, then why is Manchester Central a sensible option when it involves a rather round-the-houses route to get to Hazel Grove (and avoids calling at Stockport)?

Peak rail has, at this point, no business case. In order to generate one, you need to work out how to spend every penny (yes, even in a £100m+ project) to the maximum effectiveness. Demolishing a significant swathe of Manchester, or ripping up the very economically positive metrolink in order to put back a heavy rail line does not seem to fit that description. A new chord at Chapel-en-le-Frith to allow New Mills Central trains to get to Buxton and give an interchange at Chinley, or even a takt-style integrated bus link between Hope Valley and Buxton line stations with through ticketing would seem much more cost-effective options for allowing the fairly small number of people who wish to travel between Derbyshire/Notts and Buxton to do so. I have no idea what the demand is between Manchester and North/West of there and Bakewell/Matlock, but I'd be surprised if it was more than a bus could handle from Buxton station to Matlock.

 

[daodao]

A new chord at Chapel-en-le-Frith to allow New Mills Central trains to get to Buxton and give an interchange at Chinley.

A direct line between Chinley and Buxton via Peak Forest is still extant and used by freight trains, and the only extra re-construction required would be a platform at Buxton, although it is not obvious where this could now be sited.

I have no idea what the demand is between Manchester and North/West of there and Bakewell/Matlock, but I'd be surprised if it was more than a bus could handle from Buxton station to Matlock.

I suggested earlier that a bus link every 30 minutes between Buxton and Matlock, connecting with trains at these 2 points, is the most cost-effective solution to the missing link that is the subject of this thread. A 30 minute interval train service to Matlock would require a dynamic passing loop constructed between Cromford and Whatstandwell.

However, where the junction near Mauldeth Rd West is (where the branches split) instead trams could come from Barlow Moor Rd Stop travel along Mauldeth Rd West to Princess Parkway (or Princess rd (it’s so confusing these days)). From there they can run all the way up to Hulme

I know this is off topic, but a tramway along Mauldeth Road West, joining the then existing reserved tram track along the median of Princess Road, was planned as an express tram route to Sale by the MCT manager (Mr Mattinson) in 1928, but never built because of his untimely death. That is why Mauldeth Road West has a median strip and Hardy Lane is so wide, and was able to be used for a new tramway built 85 years after it was originally proposed.

 

[Metrolink]

I know this is off topic, but a tramway along Mauldeth Road West, joining the then existing reserved tram track along the median of Princess Road, was planned as an express tram route to Sale by the MCT manager (Mr Mattinson) in 1928, but never built because of his untimely death. That is why Mauldeth Road West has a median strip and Hardy Lane is so wide, and was able to be used for a new tramway built 85 years after it was originally proposed.

(Also off topic) Oh that’s very interesting, I never knew that. I have some old maps from 1933 and 1916 and Mauldeth Rd West could accommodate six lane road in fact if needs be!

 

[zwk500]

A direct line between Chinley and Buxton via Peak Forest is still extant and used by freight trains, and the only extra re-construction required would be a platform at Buxton, although it is not obvious where this could now be sited.

Said line enters Buxton from the south east, with a very long trundle through several freight yards. It can't serve the same station as the line from Stockport, so it limits connectivity. By using a chord onto the Stockport line, you separate passenger and freight trains, and allow all trains to serve the same Buxton station. Both of which are very good things.

 

[tbtc]

Feels like it as only yesterday that the line through Bakewell was being promoted as a way of taking freight off the Hope Valley, all you'd need would be a modest single track line with a handful of loops, no need to close the Monsall Trail etc etc...

...now the Bakewell line is being promoted as a London - Manchester line again, because of course it has to go to St Pancras because that's what some Victorian speculators arranged many generations ago, so we apparently need to follow the same route - hence the need to close a busy Metrolink line so we can follow the way that the Midland Railway entered Manchester - okay, you'd inconvenience a lot of people who use the Didsbury branch, but I'm sure they'd be understanding when they realised that they were just pawns in some Victorian nostalgia.

It's both over-the-top and strangely modest - you're spending hundreds of millions of pounds to reconnect one fairly small place without a train station (four thousand people in Bakewell? no other significant places without a station as far as I can see?) yet no station at Buxton and no stop at Stockport? Didsbury needs to lose its frequent Metrolink service and we need to build a new station in central Manchester all for the sake of a couple of trains an hour?

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 really don't understand this bit of it - fair enough some people want to build a line through the scenic/empty Peak District because it'll be a scenic day out for enthusiasts, I can understand the nostalgia - but the apparent need to close a fairly new tram line is rather perplexing...

Closing such routes would be pointless. What problem would it solve? - you'd save only a tiny fraction of the total subsidy that rail receives. Virtually none of the rail network is 'economically viable' in the sense of providing a commercial level of return. And it would be politically 'courageous' - there's a reason the government bangs on about 'reversing Beeching'.

There's also a reason that the Government hasn't actually done anything that wasn't already in the pipeline, over a year into the job - the Ashington line has been "almost ready" for a long time now - and Ashington is a slam-dunk compared to the kind of "lines through the middle of nowhere" that keep getting discussed on here.

The current Government have got where they are by making emotional appeals to older people - the kind of "getting our country" back crowd who can't really specify what they mean by it - nostalgia for being seen to reverse Beeching cuts is another vote winner with the same demographic - just keep re-announcing it every few months without actually having to put any shovels in the ground, because people don't pay enough attention to the realities, they just like the nice warm headlines about The Good Old Days.

Back to speculative rather than fantasy, Matlock to Bakewell might, just might, be feasible with some kind of very light rail railcar running in co-operation with the heritage railway (to keep the tourism draw). Bakewell to Buxton is a non-starter, there will never be enough through traffic to Buxton to justify a useful service. Manchester-Derby will continue to be more usefully served via Sheffield, as it facilitates far more destination/origin pairs

That all sounds sensible - I could see a Matlock - Bakewell re-opening happening at some stage as a low speed/ low spec extension of the hourly stopper from Derby - you'd have to buy out Peak Rail, of course, but the tokenistic thing of spending millions to be seen to reconnect Bakewell might score a few points politically

In reality, demand from Bakewell is to Chesterfield/ Sheffield rather than Derby (and certainly not to Buxton), but the everyday passenger demands will play second fiddle to some nostalgia fuelled nonsense about "putting the town on the map" - frustrating, given all of the other things we could be spending the money on

And if the whole argument about Manchester-Derby via Bakewell is the direct distance, then why is Manchester Central a sensible option when it involves a rather round-the-houses route to get to Hazel Grove (and avoids calling at Stockport)?

Agreed - the apparent need to run services to Manchester Central (and avoid Stockport) seems rather strange - but I guess if you are starting from a position of We Must Re-create What The Victorian Entrepreneurs Built then I guess you'll be happy to demolish a popular tram line and spend hundreds of millions of pounds* without serving Buxton/Stockport because the only true way to do it is the way it was done in the nineteenth century

* - I say "hundreds of millions" - I shudder to think what it'd cost just to rebuild Manchester Central (and all for the sake of one or two trains per hour) before you even start digging up chunks of the Peak District

 

[Greybeard33]

Feels like it as only yesterday that the line through Bakewell was being promoted as a way of taking freight off the Hope Valley, all you'd need would be a modest single track line with a handful of loops, no need to close the Monsall Trail etc etc...

IMO the line should be rebuilt as freight only, single track, no stations, minimal signalling, minimum cost, sharing the alignment with the Monsal Trail and Peak Rail. With the simple aim of getting the limestone out of the Peak District quarries on to the MML south without clogging up the Hope Valley and the Dore junctions.

NPR has the ambition of substantial improvements in journey time between Sheffield and Manchester by means of upgrades to the Hope Valley line. HS2 intends to route high speed trains to Sheffield via Chesterfield and Dore. It is very difficult to see how all this is compatible with paths for lumbering stone trains to crawl around the Dore South curve over the flat crossings.

Compared with the cost of a new passenger line through/under the National Park to bypass the Hope Valley, a basic freight line along the existing Monsal Dale alignment ought to be a shoo-in.

And experience shows that passenger reopenings are much more likely to have a viable business case when there is already an operational freight line along the route.

 

[zwk500]

IMO the line should be rebuilt as freight only, single track, no stations, minimal signalling, minimum cost, sharing the alignment with the Monsal Trail and Peak Rail.

You will need to build at least 1 passing loop (but probably 2, 1 at each end, to prevent delays from locking terminals or Derby station up). Even at low speed, cycling/walking along next to a freight train is not an enjoyable or safe experience, so it's questionable if even a single track will leave room for the Monsal Trail over the viaducts and tunnels. It will also be signalled from Derby ROC, probably with ETCS so it's still expensive even if you only use 1 big block. If the Monsal Trail's gradients, curves, clearances don't meet today's new-build standards, it'll all need to be redone from scratch. You can't claim grandfather rights just because there's a rough path already on the ground for you to use as a guide. So wave goodbye to minimum cost.

With the simple aim of getting the limestone out of the Peak District quarries on to the MML south without clogging up the Hope Valley and the Dore junctions.

How many paths actually go down the MML? Not very many, and peak rail does nothing for Hope sidings trains. If you're building a standard hour timetable (as most places are now), then you want to be able to use the standard freight paths as much as possible. Running Hope trains in one hour and Buxton trains in the other is a far more efficient use of capacity than building a whole new line.

NPR has the ambition of substantial improvements in journey time between Sheffield and Manchester by means of upgrades to the Hope Valley line. HS2 intends to route high speed trains to Sheffield via Chesterfield and Dore. It is very difficult to see how all this is compatible with paths for lumbering stone trains to crawl around the Dore South curve over the flat crossings.

Hence why there's a substantial upgrade of the Hope Valley line with loops to increase capacity and permit regulation.

Compared with the cost of a new passenger line through/under the National Park to bypass the Hope Valley, a basic freight line along the existing Monsal Dale alignment ought to be a shoo-in.

But the Pennine Base Tunnel isn't a serious proposition either.

And experience shows that passenger reopenings are much more likely to have a viable business case when there is already an operational freight line along the route.

But experience also shows that reinstatement for freight alone never makes a business case. New freight lines (being generous) have only been put in where 1. There is only a very short distance from the existing railway and 2. Where a lot of new potential customers are compelled to stump up a large proportion of the cost of connecting to the network as part of getting permission to erect warehouses the size of towns.

Your proposal is essentially to generate a business case by building the least economic part of it first then convincing everybody to write off the costs.

 

[D365]

And experience shows that passenger reopenings are much more likely to have a viable business case when there is already an operational freight line along the route.

The Stocksbridge line and Sheffield Old Road wave hello

 

[Hey 3]

Feels like it as only yesterday that the line through Bakewell was being promoted as a way of taking freight off the Hope Valley, all you'd need would be a modest single track line with a handful of loops, no need to close the Monsall Trail etc etc...

...now the Bakewell line is being promoted as a London - Manchester line again, because of course it has to go to St Pancras because that's what some Victorian speculators arranged many generations ago, so we apparently need to follow the same route - hence the need to close a busy Metrolink line so we can follow the way that the Midland Railway entered Manchester - okay, you'd inconvenience a lot of people who use the Didsbury branch, but I'm sure they'd be understanding when they realised that they were just pawns in some Victorian nostalgia.

It's both over-the-top and strangely modest - you're spending hundreds of millions of pounds to reconnect one fairly small place without a train station (four thousand people in Bakewell? no other significant places without a station as far as I can see?) yet no station at Buxton and no stop at Stockport? Didsbury needs to lose its frequent Metrolink service and we need to build a new station in central Manchester all for the sake of a couple of trains an hour?



I really don't understand this bit of it - fair enough some people want to build a line through the scenic/empty Peak District because it'll be a scenic day out for enthusiasts, I can understand the nostalgia - but the apparent need to close a fairly new tram line is rather perplexing...



There's also a reason that the Government hasn't actually done anything that wasn't already in the pipeline, over a year into the job - the Ashington line has been "almost ready" for a long time now - and Ashington is a slam-dunk compared to the kind of "lines through the middle of nowhere" that keep getting discussed on here.

The current Government have got where they are by making emotional appeals to older people - the kind of "getting our country" back crowd who can't really specify what they mean by it - nostalgia for being seen to reverse Beeching cuts is another vote winner with the same demographic - just keep re-announcing it every few months without actually having to put any shovels in the ground, because people don't pay enough attention to the realities, they just like the nice warm headlines about The Good Old Days.



That all sounds sensible - I could see a Matlock - Bakewell re-opening happening at some stage as a low speed/ low spec extension of the hourly stopper from Derby - you'd have to buy out Peak Rail, of course, but the tokenistic thing of spending millions to be seen to reconnect Bakewell might score a few points politically

In reality, demand from Bakewell is to Chesterfield/ Sheffield rather than Derby (and certainly not to Buxton), but the everyday passenger demands will play second fiddle to some nostalgia fuelled nonsense about "putting the town on the map" - frustrating, given all of the other things we could be spending the money on



Agreed - the apparent need to run services to Manchester Central (and avoid Stockport) seems rather strange - but I guess if you are starting from a position of We Must Re-create What The Victorian Entrepreneurs Built then I guess you'll be happy to demolish a popular tram line and spend hundreds of millions of pounds* without serving Buxton/Stockport because the only true way to do it is the way it was done in the nineteenth century

* - I say "hundreds of millions" - I shudder to think what it'd cost just to rebuild Manchester Central (and all for the sake of one or two trains per hour) before you even start digging up chunks of the Peak District

Avoiding Stockport can be mittigated by use Cheadle Heath as a parkway or using tram-trains to Stockport and the Airport(remember it joins the South Manchester Line at St Werburgh's Road) from East Didsbury(to make people happy and not cause outrage)

 

[zwk500]

Avoiding Stockport can be mittigated by use Cheadle Heath as a parkway or using tram-trains to Stockport and the Airport(remember it joins the South Manchester Line at St Werburgh's Road) from East Didsbury(to make people happy and not cause outrage)

What demand for journeys are you fulfilling with tram-trains between Buxton and seemingly anywhere in Manchester you can get away with, that is not already adequately catered for or can be catered for with a far more cost-effective option?

 

[tbtc]

IMO the line should be rebuilt as freight only, single track, no stations, minimal signalling, minimum cost, sharing the alignment with the Monsal Trail and Peak Rail. With the simple aim of getting the limestone out of the Peak District quarries on to the MML south without clogging up the Hope Valley and the Dore junctions.

NPR has the ambition of substantial improvements in journey time between Sheffield and Manchester by means of upgrades to the Hope Valley line. HS2 intends to route high speed trains to Sheffield via Chesterfield and Dore. It is very difficult to see how all this is compatible with paths for lumbering stone trains to crawl around the Dore South curve over the flat crossings.

Compared with the cost of a new passenger line through/under the National Park to bypass the Hope Valley, a basic freight line along the existing Monsal Dale alignment ought to be a shoo-in.

And experience shows that passenger reopenings are much more likely to have a viable business case when there is already an operational freight line along the route.

IF the freight is so important then that sounds fine (although anything from Hope is going to clog up at last part of the Hope Valley line, whether east of Hope or west of Hope) - a number of Hope trains run north of Sheffield so wouldn't be affected by this anyway - I just get frustrated by the kind of enthusiast who instinctively reach for some mega-plan full of nostalgia (e.g. you apparently can't build a simple extension from Bere Alston to Tavistock, you need to build a through line to Okahampton because we must run direct services to Waterloo, just like you apparently can't build a simple extension from Matlock to Bakewell, you need to build a through line through East Didsbury to Manchester Central... ) - I'm naturally suspicious of people with pre-formed solutions, since such things generally suggest that they didn't understand the problem in the first place.

Avoiding Stockport can be mittigated by use Cheadle Heath as a parkway or using tram-trains to Stockport and the Airport(remember it joins the South Manchester Line at St Werburgh's Road) from East Didsbury(to make people happy and not cause outrage)

What demand for journeys are you fulfilling with tram-trains between Buxton and seemingly anywhere in Manchester you can get away with, that is not already adequately catered for or can be catered for with a far more cost-effective option?

I'm getting even more confused here... so we must close the East Didsbury - Manchester line to trams but build new tram lines to give East Didsbury trams to lesser destinations? Just like we must apparently spend hundreds of millions of pounds on building a line through the middle of nowhere and rebuilding a station in central Manchester for the sake of a couple of trains per hour but apparently there's no money in the budget for an extra path per hour over the Stockport Viaduct (which is why we must close the East Didsbury line to trams)? Build a new station at Hazel Grove and one at Cheadle Heath "Parkway" but not just do the simple thing of running trains through actual Stockport, despite the hundreds of millions of pounds that you are wanting to spend?

Of all of the problems that central Manchester has with heavy rail (all the flat junctions, the Castlefield Corridor, the daft amount of hourly services that create a messy pattern of routes), I don't think that Manchester Central was anywhere on the list, yet here we are...

 

[Killingworth]

When I walked the Derwent Valley route from Rowsley to Derby, and followed the line of the railway from Rowsley along the Monsal Trail towards Buxton, I made use of bus routes TP1, TP2 and TP3. In those days TP1 ran from Derby to Manchester Airport. It no longer exists and the 199 now runs half hourly from Buxton to the Airport, via Stockport. A single decker with a capacity rather less than any train.

TP2 runs hourly from Derby to Matlock and I believe the same bus continues as the TP3 from there to Buxton. It takes just under 2 hours for the picturesque tour from Derby to Buxton by bus, calling all villages. The TP1 was limited stop and a lot quicker, but too few used it to be economic.

Derby to Manchester via Stoke by train takes about 1 hour 45 minutes (other routings are available).

Chickens and eggs no doubt. However, the previous experience (pre-Covid) with buses between Matlock and Buxton suggests there's not a big demand. Folks from Matlock and Bakewell gravitate towards Derby and Sheffield and from Buxton they look towards Stockport and Manchester.

That explains the missing public transport link. It's existed for generations.

Reopening a long abandoned railway at enormous expense to satisfy a very low passenger demand makes no sense - quite apart from a rail route from Matlock to Buxton being unable to use the existing Buxton station without reversing or the creation of a new platform with attendant track on land that's now been used for other purposes.

Older Peak Rail members may recall the appeal some 35-40 years ago to construct a new bridge across Bridge (or Charles) Street to get into Buxton from the south by reconnecting to Network Rail's Ashwood Dale route. Back then I believed in the project and bought shares I couldn't easily afford. Back then it could have been more easily restored. Too many years have now passed. Buxton Spring Water's plant was built on the old Buxton Midland station site, but has been demolished already. Time has marched on.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Folks from Matlock and Bakewell gravitate towards Derby and Sheffield and from Buxton they look towards Stockport and Manchester.

Numerous good observations by @Killingworth in the above post, but this last point might possibly be a bit self-fulfilling, as the good burghers of Buxton will undoubtedly have to gravitate towards Stockport and Manchester 'cos that's where their railway line currently goes to!

Similarly Matlock folk will tend to gravitate towards Derby cos that's where their National Rail line goes.

 

[Greybeard33]

How many paths actually go down the MML? Not very many, and peak rail does nothing for Hope sidings trains. If you're building a standard hour timetable (as most places are now), then you want to be able to use the standard freight paths as much as possible. Running Hope trains in one hour and Buxton trains in the other is a far more efficient use of capacity than building a whole new line.

Not very many actual trains go down the MML in the daytime most days, but there are lots of paths - up to 2tphpd in some hours. The standard hour timetable has to allow room for the freight paths even though they are not used 24/7.

Cement trains from Hope could go round via Chinley and Peak Forest as an alternative to Dore - less severe gradients than through Totley and Dore and fewer junction conflicts. The choice of route would give more timetabling flexibility.

Hence why there's a substantial upgrade of the Hope Valley line with loops to increase capacity and permit regulation.

But the Hope Valley upgrade has unfortunately been de-specced through the planning process. The Grindleford loop is in a non optimum location and its use for regulation will be problematic because the heavy freight will have to restart uphill into the Totley tunnel.

Even after the upgrade, the line will not come close to the TfN aspirations for NPR journey time and frequency. Removal of much of the freight would enable an improved passenger timetable and improve punctuality performance, delivering wider regional economic benefits that would hopefully make the business case for the freight line.

 

[Killingworth]

Similarly Matlock folk will tend to gravitate towards Derby cos that's where their National Rail line goes.

Like I said, chickens and eggs.

 

[zwk500]

Not very many actual trains go down the MML in the daytime most days, but there are lots of paths - up to 2tphpd in some hours. The standard hour timetable has to allow room for the freight paths even though they are not used 24/7.

That room will have to be left in the Hope Valley standard hour for Hope Sidings trains.

Cement trains from Hope could go round via Chinley and Peak Forest as an alternative to Dore - less severe gradients than through Totley and Dore and fewer junction conflicts. The choice of route would give more timetabling flexibility.

There's plenty of junction conflicts at Chinley and through the various quarries on the way past Buxton. Not to mention at ambergate attempting to get out onto the MML.

But the Hope Valley upgrade has unfortunately been de-specced through the planning process. The Grindleford loop is in a non optimum location and its use for regulation will be problematic because the heavy freight will have to restart uphill into the Totley tunnel.

If it wasn't worth the money to upgrade the existing route, what hope does the business case for a brand new route have?

Even after the upgrade, the line will not come close to the TfN aspirations for NPR journey time and frequency. Removal of much of the freight would enable an improved passenger timetable and improve punctuality performance, delivering wider regional economic benefits that would hopefully make the business case for the freight line.

You are determined to rebuild the line, and working backwards from there to generate a business case. Fundamentally, new lines must generate new traffic if they are to be built. At no point has anybody suggested that any new freight traffic will be generated by the line (nor even that existing terminals run addtional paths, I note). If the only additional traffic this line is going to generate is passengers, then you need to add the passengers from day 1, not run it at a loss for 5 years to write off the costs for a separate business case - the Treasury certainly won't be fooled.

Have any Manchester or Derby based businesses actively sought the reopening? Or have and Buxton/Bakewell/Matlock based funding sources committed any serious cash? If the answers to both of these are no, that should tell you exactly how local people view the demand and viability for the link.

Chickens and eggs no doubt. However, the previous experience (pre-Covid) with buses between Matlock and Buxton suggests there's not a big demand. Folks from Matlock and Bakewell gravitate towards Derby and Sheffield and from Buxton they look towards Stockport and Manchester.

That explains the missing public transport link. It's existed for generations.

This is, I think the key point. Chicken and Eggs yes, but fundamentally it doesn't matter which comes first if there's only a limited number of them.

 

[Aictos]

Best thing to do is not to reopen the former route but rather make sure that the local bus and rail services connect with each other.

A example and I'm using a connection at Edridge here but the Spa Valley Railway and Southern actually work together to ensure there are connections indeed I believe it's done in such a way that coming from London on the Uckfield service you have the Spa Valley Railway service in the platform waiting and on the return, you have around 10 minutes from arriving back from Tunbridge Wells to board the Southern back to London.

So applying the same is possible and would benefit both bus and rail passengers in the Peak District area.

 

[quantinghome]

There's also a reason that the Government hasn't actually done anything that wasn't already in the pipeline, over a year into the job - the Ashington line has been "almost ready" for a long time now - and Ashington is a slam-dunk compared to the kind of "lines through the middle of nowhere" that keep getting discussed on here.

The current Government have got where they are by making emotional appeals to older people - the kind of "getting our country" back crowd who can't really specify what they mean by it - nostalgia for being seen to reverse Beeching cuts is another vote winner with the same demographic - just keep re-announcing it every few months without actually having to put any shovels in the ground, because people don't pay enough attention to the realities, they just like the nice warm headlines about The Good Old Days.

Yes, I agree entirely. It's a cynical exercise in electoral manipulation. But this is an important consideration when it comes to the fate of existing rural lines; the charade would be completely destroyed if they tried to shut them down. I don't think the government would seriously entertain doing so. They may try a kite-flying exercise - leaks to the press or some suggestion from one of the right-wing 'thinktanks' - to gauge public mood. Sadly the spending most at risk from the Treasury will be investment - few voters will complain about a railway that was never built.

 

[Greybeard33]

That room will have to be left in the Hope Valley standard hour for Hope Sidings trains.

One freight path per hour in the Hope Valley is not sufficient for all the freight traffic from the Buxton quarries as well as from Hope. The alternative route will enable Hope Valley freight to be reduced to one path in the standard hour, so releasing capacity for passenger services.

If it wasn't worth the money to upgrade the existing route, what hope does the business case for a brand new route have?

The Hope Valley Capacity Project certainly is value for money, but it is not sufficient for the long term and there is little scope for further enhancement works within the National Park. Network Rail had to move the new loop further west from the site originally proposed at Grindleford to the site now approved at Bamford because of local objections. This has made it less effective for freight regulation.

There's plenty of junction conflicts at Chinley and through the various quarries on the way past Buxton. Not to mention at ambergate attempting to get out onto the MML.

Diverting freight from Peak Forest and Buxton via Bakewell will reduce junction conflicts at Chinley as well as at Dore. Conflicts at Ambergate will be reduced when London - Sheffield trains use HS2 instead of running via Derby. This is a long term project!

You are determined to rebuild the line, and working backwards from there to generate a business case. Fundamentally, new lines must generate new traffic if they are to be built. At no point has anybody suggested that any new freight traffic will be generated by the line (nor even that existing terminals run addtional paths, I note). If the only additional traffic this line is going to generate is passengers, then you need to add the passengers from day 1, not run it at a loss for 5 years to write off the costs for a separate business case - the Treasury certainly won't be fooled.

The new traffic the reopening will generate will be passenger traffic on the Hope Valley line, using the capacity released by diverting the freight. Without that capacity the Hope Valley is unfit for purpose in the long term as only the rail route between Sheffield and Manchester.

I am not suggesting reopening Buxton/Chinley to Matlock to passenger traffic.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The current Government have got where they are by making emotional appeals to older people - the kind of "getting our country" back crowd who can't really specify what they mean by it - nostalgia for being seen to reverse Beeching cuts is another vote winner with the same demographic . . . .

Being in my mid-70s I feel I must point out that most elderly people do not want to reverse Beeching. We leave that to the Johnny-come-latelys who weren't there at the time and who know only what they've read and heard and what they've decided to believe.

 

[zwk500]

One freight path per hour in the Hope Valley is not sufficient for all the freight traffic from the Buxton quarries as well as from Hope. The alternative route will enable Hope Valley freight to be reduced to one path in the standard hour, so releasing capacity for passenger services.

The Hope Valley Capacity Project certainly is value for money, but it is not sufficient for the long term and there is little scope for further enhancement works within the National Park. Network Rail had to move the new loop further west from the site originally proposed at Grindleford to the site now approved at Bamford because of local objections. This has made it less effective for freight regulation.

It might be not quite optimal for operation, but it did at least let it get built.

Diverting freight from Peak Forest and Buxton via Bakewell will reduce junction conflicts at Chinley as well as at Dore. Conflicts at Ambergate will be reduced when London - Sheffield trains use HS2 instead of running via Derby. This is a long term project!

HS2 removes at most 2tph from Ambergate (but more likely only 1tph). You'll still have 2 XC tph and locals, but probably also 1tph intercity to maintain Sheffield-Derby-Leicester corridor.

The new traffic the reopening will generate will be passenger traffic on the Hope Valley line, using the capacity released by diverting the freight. Without that capacity the Hope Valley is unfit for purpose in the long term as only the rail route between Sheffield and Manchester.

I am not suggesting reopening Buxton/Chinley to Matlock to passenger traffic.

Freight is a secondary constraint to additional passenger traffic on the Hope Valley Line - Manchester approaches and Sheffield station capacity is a far bigger issue, as mentioned upthread. Assuming you can solve both of those with HS2 (which I doubt, but we'll go with it for now), will the additional passenger revenue cover the operating cost of both the new services AND the freight route, and will the wider economic benefits of this additional passenger traffic generate enough taxation revenue to repay the money borrowed to build the new freight line?

That's the total cost of the new line - everything from Lawyer's fees to buying the rails. It will probably easily top £1bn. If you assume a 100-year accounting timeframe, that's £10m a year (yes, we use the US billion, grr...) additional revenue generated by addtional traffic on the Hope Valley alone, plus interest. The UK tax:GDP ration is 33%. So the additional traffic on the Hope Valley would need to generate a minimum additional £30m a year ON IT'S OWN to break even over 100 years for each £1bn spent. That's wider economic benefit, not fare revenue. Fare revenue will need to cover the operating costs of both the additional services (Staff, units) extra maintenance on the Hope Valley and the additional maintenance cost of the entire new route on it's own.
Given that this will need to be funded by HM Treasury, I imagine they will want a quicker return on their investment than 100 years, and the cost of the new line will probably be higher than £1bn, so your £30m a year additional benefit probably needs to be in the £50m+ range.

 

[furnessvale]

That room will have to be left in the Hope Valley standard hour for Hope Sidings trains.

There's plenty of junction conflicts at Chinley and through the various quarries on the way past Buxton. Not to mention at ambergate attempting to get out onto the MML.

If it wasn't worth the money to upgrade the existing route, what hope does the business case for a brand new route have?

You are determined to rebuild the line, and working backwards from there to generate a business case. Fundamentally, new lines must generate new traffic if they are to be built. At no point has anybody suggested that any new freight traffic will be generated by the line (nor even that existing terminals run addtional paths, I note). If the only additional traffic this line is going to generate is passengers, then you need to add the passengers from day 1, not run it at a loss for 5 years to write off the costs for a separate business case - the Treasury certainly won't be fooled.

Have any Manchester or Derby based businesses actively sought the reopening? Or have and Buxton/Bakewell/Matlock based funding sources committed any serious cash? If the answers to both of these are no, that should tell you exactly how local people view the demand and viability for the link.

This is, I think the key point. Chicken and Eggs yes, but fundamentally it doesn't matter which comes first if there's only a limited number of them.

No one has suggested reopening will generate extra freight to rail? Allow me to suggest it.

Despite much stone to the south moving by rail, there is at least an equal amount moving in the same direction by road, as the residents of Ashbourne can testify. Reducing the length and time of the rail journey, which currently heads north, then east or west before finally heading south, will reduce the cost to existing trains and encourage modal shift.

 

[yorksrob]

One freight path per hour in the Hope Valley is not sufficient for all the freight traffic from the Buxton quarries as well as from Hope. The alternative route will enable Hope Valley freight to be reduced to one path in the standard hour, so releasing capacity for passenger services.

The Hope Valley Capacity Project certainly is value for money, but it is not sufficient for the long term and there is little scope for further enhancement works within the National Park. Network Rail had to move the new loop further west from the site originally proposed at Grindleford to the site now approved at Bamford because of local objections. This has made it less effective for freight regulation.

Diverting freight from Peak Forest and Buxton via Bakewell will reduce junction conflicts at Chinley as well as at Dore. Conflicts at Ambergate will be reduced when London - Sheffield trains use HS2 instead of running via Derby. This is a long term project!

The new traffic the reopening will generate will be passenger traffic on the Hope Valley line, using the capacity released by diverting the freight. Without that capacity the Hope Valley is unfit for purpose in the long term as only the rail route between Sheffield and Manchester.

I am not suggesting reopening Buxton/Chinley to Matlock to passenger traffic.

Personally I'm pro reopening it, but I feel it would be pointless to do so without including passenger services.

 

[zwk500]

No one has suggested reopening will generate extra freight to rail? Allow me to suggest it.

Despite much stone to the south moving by rail, there is at least an equal amount moving in the same direction by road, as the residents of Ashbourne can testify. Reducing the length and time of the rail journey, which currently heads north, then east or west before finally heading south, will reduce the cost to existing trains and encourage modal shift.

Given these lorries are running from quarries that are already rail-connected, I doubt that any modal shift will occur. The peak line will not be fast enough to save any serious time on the journey, nor will the paths on the MML be any better than the currently existing ones. Better spending the money on running the existing trains longer and heavier.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

As the Victorian poet John Ruskin once wrote...

"There was a rocky valley between Buxton and Bakewell, once upon a time, divine as the Vale of Tempe...

You Enterprised a Railroad through the valley – you blasted its rocks away, heaped thousands of tons of shale into its lovely stream.

The valley is gone, and the Gods with it; and now, every fool in Buxton can be in Bakewell in half an hour, and every fool in Bakewell at Buxton; which you think a lucrative process of exchange – you Fools everywhere."

This forum is certainly nothing if not topical!

 

[furnessvale]

Given these lorries are running from quarries that are already rail-connected, I doubt that any modal shift will occur. The peak line will not be fast enough to save any serious time on the journey, nor will the paths on the MML be any better than the currently existing ones. Better spending the money on running the existing trains longer and heavier.

That is one opinion on the matter. Given that some trains to the south head as far north as Guide Bridge before making any attempt to turn in the correct direction, and that such trains have been moving for two hours before achieving the same latitude as that from which they departed, I beg to differ. In an easterly direction, some southbound trains trundle through Sheffield and round the Beighton loop before getting down to business as to where they are going.

 

[Hey 3]

If Manchester Central is open for 2tph only from the Buxton-Matlock line, we could do this
7tph "Metro" stopper services to Cheadle Heath to compensate for the trams(1 peak extra is thrown in from Chinley), Derby to Manchester stopping 4tph(3 tph off peak)
This way services on the South Manchester Line are compensated for by a quick and frequent service and also the line would get 1tph London St Pancras

 

[Metrolink]

If Manchester Central is open for 2tph only from the Buxton-Matlock line, we could do this
7tph "Metro" stopper services to Cheadle Heath to compensate for the trams(1 peak extra is thrown in from Chinley), Derby to Manchester stopping 4tph(3 tph off peak)
This way services on the South Manchester Line are compensated for by a quick and frequent service and also the line would get 1tph London St Pancras

That seems like a solid timetable. Can I ask who would operate these services and what class of train would you recommend for it?

 

[Greybeard33]

HS2 removes at most 2tph from Ambergate (but more likely only 1tph). You'll still have 2 XC tph and locals, but probably also 1tph intercity to maintain Sheffield-Derby-Leicester corridor.

Nevertheless fewer conflicts than at Dore, where HS2 will add 2tph more from Chesterfield to Sheffield, crossing the paths of 4tph of passenger services towards the Hope Valley, before including the freight.

That's the total cost of the new line - everything from Lawyer's fees to buying the rails. It will probably easily top £1bn. If you assume a 100-year accounting timeframe, that's £10m a year (yes, we use the US billion, grr...) additional revenue generated by addtional traffic on the Hope Valley alone, plus interest. The UK tax:GDP ration is 33%. So the additional traffic on the Hope Valley would need to generate a minimum additional £30m a year ON IT'S OWN to break even over 100 years for each £1bn spent. That's wider economic benefit, not fare revenue. Fare revenue will need to cover the operating costs of both the additional services (Staff, units) extra maintenance on the Hope Valley and the additional maintenance cost of the entire new route on it's own.
Given that this will need to be funded by HM Treasury, I imagine they will want a quicker return on their investment than 100 years, and the cost of the new line will probably be higher than £1bn, so your £30m a year additional benefit probably needs to be in the £50m+ range.

If you want farebox revenue from every line to cover its full operating and maintenance costs, you had better campaign for a new Serpell report! Even pre-Covid, try adding the Network Grant to the net subsidy to all the TOCs.

Under the government's levelling up agenda, the economic benefit of improved connectivity between the Northern city regions is not measured just by the effect on Treasury tax receipts. Economic integration stimulates regional economic growth and GDP, countering the pull towards London.

 

[Hey 3]

That seems like a solid timetable. Can I ask who would operate these services and what class of train would you recommend for it?

I would reccomend probably any electric /diesel stock for the "Metro" services and stopping service, 323s,331s or 769s(on electric) to Cheadle Heath and Northern would operate this(remember the DFT have to wire to Cheadle Heath as a legal requirement, if not further). EMR would operate the London services with 222 Voyagers or 43×Mk 3 sets and when the 810s come, EMR would use them instead.