Buxton to Matlock - The missing link

[Killingworth]

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.

Lots of local objections but the biggest was the landowner, the National Trust. However, Network Rail backed off because when looked at in detail the amount of embankment and cutting needed was greater than first envisaged.

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.

It's true that a lot of stone moves out of the Peak District by road. How much could be transferred to rail is unknown, but many of the single truck loads would not be deliverable in train loads to dedicated sidings. The big loop north to Guide Bridge to bring stone south is an issue that could be eased. New potential speculative thread warning! Build a chord in Reddish Vale between Brinnington and Reddish South. That would not go down well locally I'm sure.

However, we're worrying over much about stone and cement traffic capacity. Dore West Junction is the critical point at the eastern end of the Hope Valley. Yesterday was a fairly typical busy day. I've left out the passenger services from this RTT list of services for the full 24 hours. The number of paths looks higher than it really is because many are 2 or 3 way options for starting or finishing points. Several are to take empty wagons to or from Toton or Barrow Hill because there's not enough space for them to be held at the quarries. Others are for light engines going for servicing, refuelling or redeployment. However, there's room to run more services in from the east.

Contrast that with the number that ran out or in yesterday to the west through Chinley. One light engine, so there's no shortage of available paths from that side.

I share concerns about the usefulness of the Bamford loop. It's not designed primarily for looping passenger services, but it could be. Release an eastbound stone or cement train immediately behind the stopper at Chinley or Earles. Loop the stopper after Bamford to allow the freight a clear run to Dore West and beyond. Once the freight's rolling the stopper shouldn't catch it up.

Of course if they'd planned another effective loop at Dore station by making it bi-directional (the option was there but dropped) trains could be overtaken in either direction, and it's downhill from there into Sheffield.

Then there's electrification. The long tunnels at Totley and Cowburn are probably in the too hard category. Class 93 type bi-mode freight haulage changes that outlook. Electrification in the open air sections would allow them to operate on diesel or battery in freight yards and on non-electrified mainlines they'd be able to speed up timing considerably.

Install a new crossover west of Earles and more traffic could enter more easily from the Chinley end without having to reverse across both tracks.

Before lashing out millions (be that tens or hundreds of) on reopening plans for a long disused line with an unproven market, surely it's better to invest in a neglected but living railway that cries out for further development?

 

[Hey 3]

Lots of local objections but the biggest was the landowner, the National Trust. However, Network Rail backed off because when looked at in detail the amount of embankment and cutting needed was greater than first envisaged.


It's true that a lot of stone moves out of the Peak District by road. How much could be transferred to rail is unknown, but many of the single truck loads would not be deliverable in train loads to dedicated sidings. The big loop north to Guide Bridge to bring stone south is an issue that could be eased. New potential speculative thread warning! Build a chord in Reddish Vale between Brinnington and Reddish South. That would not go down well locally I'm sure.

However, we're worrying over much about stone and cement traffic capacity. Dore West Junction is the critical point at the eastern end of the Hope Valley. Yesterday was a fairly typical busy day. I've left out the passenger services from this RTT list of services for the full 24 hours. The number of paths looks higher than it really is because many are 2 or 3 way options for starting or finishing points. Several are to take empty wagons to or from Toton or Barrow Hill because there's not enough space for them to be held at the quarries. Others are for light engines going for servicing, refuelling or redeployment. However, there's room to run more services in from the east.

Contrast that with the number that ran out or in yesterday to the west through Chinley. One light engine, so there's no shortage of available paths from that side.

I share concerns about the usefulness of the Bamford loop. It's not designed primarily for looping passenger services, but it could be. Release an eastbound stone or cement train immediately behind the stopper at Chinley or Earles. Loop the stopper after Bamford to allow the freight a clear run to Dore West and beyond. Once the freight's rolling the stopper shouldn't catch it up.

Of course if they'd planned another effective loop at Dore station by making it bi-directional (the option was there but dropped) trains could be overtaken in either direction, and it's downhill from there into Sheffield.

Then there's electrification. The long tunnels at Totley and Cowburn are probably in the too hard category. Class 93 type bi-mode freight haulage changes that outlook. Electrification in the open air sections would allow them to operate on diesel or battery in freight yards and on non-electrified mainlines they'd be able to speed up timing considerably.

Install a new crossover west of Earles and more traffic could enter more easily from the Chinley end without having to reverse across both tracks.

Before lashing out millions (be that tens or hundreds of) on reopening plans for a long disused line with an unproven market, surely it's better to invest in a neglected but living railway that cries out for further development?

Why not do both.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2021 ==

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.

Also I would use battery 331s(when they come or 769s to Derby(maybe even 323s if the DFT wire to Chinley(then the DFT must to wire to Matlock, if not further

 

[zwk500]

Why not do both.

Because the national credit card is a tad overdrawn at the moment, and it will take time to bring the nation's finances back to a level where capital investment in infrastructure is given a free hand. A few, worthy, schemes will be selected to continue with, but they will all have a common theme: reducing current ongoing operating cost. Replacing AB signals with ROC control, remodelling older layouts to improve reliability and reduce maintenance demands, electrification to reduce track wear and speed up services. Not building brand new lines with little or no demand because there used to be a railway in that valley some 50 years ago.

 

[Greybeard33]

However, we're worrying over much about stone and cement traffic capacity. Dore West Junction is the critical point at the eastern end of the Hope Valley. Yesterday was a fairly typical busy day. I've left out the passenger services from this RTT list of services for the full 24 hours. The number of paths looks higher than it really is because many are 2 or 3 way options for starting or finishing points. Several are to take empty wagons to or from Toton or Barrow Hill because there's not enough space for them to be held at the quarries. Others are for light engines going for servicing, refuelling or redeployment. However, there's room

Nevertheless, this does show that the Working Timetable has two separate freight paths in the same direction in some hours, e.g. eastbound at 1236 and 1245. The empties and light engine movements restrict the slots available for passenger trains.

Then there's electrification. The long tunnels at Totley and Cowburn are probably in the too hard category. Class 93 type bi-mode freight haulage changes that outlook. Electrification in the open air sections would allow them to operate on diesel or battery in freight yards and on non-electrified mainlines they'd be able to speed up timing considerably.

From the discussion in the Class 93 thread, you would need to wire through the Totley tunnel if you wanted a 93 to haul a laden stone train up that hill at an acceptable speed. Even with fully charged batteries, it only has about half the power of a 66 off the wires.

 

[Killingworth]

From the discussion in the Class 93 thread, you would need to wire through the Totley tunnel if you wanted a 93 to haul a laden stone train up that hill at an acceptable speed. Even with fully charged batteries, it only has about half the power of a 66 off the wires.

Class 93 as now is not the locomotive that will be built in 2031-41. Once we need lots of such power units there will have been more advances. Pilot assistance by double heading probably not in the mix, but possibly could be. Too far ahead for details anyway.

As an aside I'd remind those wanting to reopen a through route between Chinley and Ambergate (the mainline junctions necessary to get anywhere beyond at either end) that redoubling of about 1km of track at Dore has been in planning since before 2005 and won't be complete until at least 2023. It takes a long time to get rail projects delivered. The Blyth and Tyne project has been gestating for decades and that's almost flat on existing and operational mineral tracks and not in a National Park.

We should expect any authorised new routes to be electrification ready. All new structures being built for the Hope Valley Scheme are expected to be, as they would on a reopened Peak route. Any public rights of way crossing the tracks might require bridges. One to be built at Hathersage West may cost £750k.

 

[daodao]

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.

Your posts are bizarre. While I have a fond childhood memory of catching a St Pancras express at Didsbury station, there is no way that the long-closed line from M/c Central to Matlock will ever be re-created as a through route. The Metrolink service to Parrs Wood is an excellent use of the M/c South District railway trackbed, and there must be significant traffic to justify a weekday daytime service every 6 (rather than 12) minutes.

 

[Killingworth]

This thread is born out of a total lack of appreciation of the realities of past and future demand for public transport on this route and the practical challenges of rebuilding a modern railway more than 50 years after closure if such demand were ever proven.

The limited stop hourly Transpeak service TP1 from Derby to Manchester via Matlock and Buxton didn't last long and the hourly combined TP2 and TP3 from Derby to Matlock and on to Buxton is purely a local all stops service. It's highly unlikely an hourly railway route from Buxton to Matlock would be viable even if the tracks already existed. The supposedly missing link is likely to remain satisfied by that stopping bus for the foreseeable future.

As for the suggested connections beyond Buxton into Manchester, they sound like speculative ideas for producing very costly problems and chaos where none, or very little, currently exists. Examination of detailed maps and actually walking through the proposed areas will produce a lot of very helpful data and observations to back up the population and transport statistics that are readily available.

 

[tbtc]

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.

Maybe it's telling that the commercial bus service in the middle part (Buxton - Bakewell) has dwindled though.

Some routes have grown in recent years - TM Travel have turned the irregular Sheffield - Bakewell service into a half hourly route, Stagecoach have turned the hourly Matlock - Chesterfield bus service into a double decker Stagecoach "Gold" service to Chesterfield/ Sheffield/ Meadowhall (and Barnsley at times), the TrentBarton services south of Matlock seem busy enough when I've seen them. Hulleys have taken a big risk on Sheffield - Ladybower - Glossop - Manchester buses, and good luck to them with it.

But, if there were a huge market for Buxton - Bakewell then it seems to be something that no bus operator can fit enough bums on a minibus to sustain any improvement over the shrinking "TP" service (which used to be Nottingham - Manchester bus for many years but has seen cutback after cutback as economic realities bite, and was a shadow of its former self before lockdown bit hard)

Despite those eagle eyed capitalists at Stagecoach having depots in Manchester/ Glossop/ Sheffield/ Chesterfield etc they haven't applied the same enthusiasm for Buxton - Bakewell that they've found on other links in the East Midlands (e.g. an hourly Chesterfield - Nottingham coach service started pre-pandemic, so they were willing to take things on).

If you want to improve public transport from Buxton then I'd suggest that Stoke via Leek would be the biggest priority, then Macclesfield and Sheffield - but there's not the same interest in those kind of links because there's not a disused railway line for people to get nostalgic about.

Mind you, even if there was a large percentage of Bakewell people wanting to travel to Manchester each day, it's a pretty tiny population in the first place.

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

True - but much more fun to get the crayons out and dream up re-openings, when we can't even find the money/ business case for a relatively simple passing loop on an existing line.

You are determined to rebuild the line, and working backwards from there to generate a business case

The same could be said of many posters on here, sadly

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.

You're right - even if we keep having to subsidise basket case lines, it'll be easier to slash investment on new routes that would have been used by a lot more people

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.

Apologies - you'll know the reality of how badly lines were used pre-closure - apologies for tarring you with the same brush as others

This thread is born out of a total lack of appreciation of the realities of past and future demand for public transport on this route and the practical challenges of rebuilding a modern railway more than 50 years after closure if such demand were ever proven

Beautifully put

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

So you'd have a service from Manchester to London that stopped at Withington, Burton Road, West Didsbury, Cheadle Parkway, Bakewell, Matlock, Derby and a few local stations on the way to London?

Derby gets four trains per hour to London at peak times? This is on the same Thameslink line that's so busy that there wasn't a London - Sheffield service between 16:57 and 18:02 for a while, due to the lack of paths?

 

[daodao]

Maybe it's telling that the commercial bus service in the middle part (Buxton - Bakewell) has dwindled though.

The Buxton to Matlock bus service (NWRCC route 4) in September 1967 (after closure of the stopping train service via Miller's Dale earlier in 1967) was only hourly with some gaps. There were 4 additional express coaches (route X2 M/c-Nottingham via Heanor), but it is unclear whether these could carry local passengers. The current bus service (TP) is hourly (2 hourly on Sundays), so hasn't dwindled, unlike most routes over the last 50 years. In my view, this public transport service provision is adequate and there is no rationale whatsoever in attempting to reopen this closed rail route.

Incidentally, the Macclesfield-Buxton route (58) is far better than it was 50 years ago, with an hourly daytime Mon-Sat service, although the Sunday journeys have been withdrawn (?temporarily).

 

[Killingworth]

Personally, I would love to see the line reopen and can’t see it ever happening.

The original poster has wound us all up because almost all of us agree with the diagnosis in the second part of their sentence.

 

[Hey 3]

Maybe it's telling that the commercial bus service in the middle part (Buxton - Bakewell) has dwindled though.

Some routes have grown in recent years - TM Travel have turned the irregular Sheffield - Bakewell service into a half hourly route, Stagecoach have turned the hourly Matlock - Chesterfield bus service into a double decker Stagecoach "Gold" service to Chesterfield/ Sheffield/ Meadowhall (and Barnsley at times), the TrentBarton services south of Matlock seem busy enough when I've seen them. Hulleys have taken a big risk on Sheffield - Ladybower - Glossop - Manchester buses, and good luck to them with it.

But, if there were a huge market for Buxton - Bakewell then it seems to be something that no bus operator can fit enough bums on a minibus to sustain any improvement over the shrinking "TP" service (which used to be Nottingham - Manchester bus for many years but has seen cutback after cutback as economic realities bite, and was a shadow of its former self before lockdown bit hard)

Despite those eagle eyed capitalists at Stagecoach having depots in Manchester/ Glossop/ Sheffield/ Chesterfield etc they haven't applied the same enthusiasm for Buxton - Bakewell that they've found on other links in the East Midlands (e.g. an hourly Chesterfield - Nottingham coach service started pre-pandemic, so they were willing to take things on).

If you want to improve public transport from Buxton then I'd suggest that Stoke via Leek would be the biggest priority, then Macclesfield and Sheffield - but there's not the same interest in those kind of links because there's not a disused railway line for people to get nostalgic about.

Mind you, even if there was a large percentage of Bakewell people wanting to travel to Manchester each day, it's a pretty tiny population in the first place.



True - but much more fun to get the crayons out and dream up re-openings, when we can't even find the money/ business case for a relatively simple passing loop on an existing line.



The same could be said of many posters on here, sadly



You're right - even if we keep having to subsidise basket case lines, it'll be easier to slash investment on new routes that would have been used by a lot more people



Apologies - you'll know the reality of how badly lines were used pre-closure - apologies for tarring you with the same brush as others



Beautifully put



So you'd have a service from Manchester to London that stopped at Withington, Burton Road, West Didsbury, Cheadle Parkway, Bakewell, Matlock, Derby and a few local stations on the way to London?

Derby gets four trains per hour to London at peak times? This is on the same Thameslink line that's so busy that there wasn't a London - Sheffield service between 16:57 and 18:02 for a while, due to the lack of paths?

No,you got me wrong, I did put my pattern for a London service above

 

[daodao]

No,you got me wrong, I did put my pattern for a London service above

London service?!!! Are you mad, or just a luftmensch?

 

[Llandudno]

The Buxton to Matlock bus service (NWRCC route 4) in September 1967 (after closure of the stopping train service via Miller's Dale earlier in 1967) was only hourly with some gaps. There were 4 additional express coaches (route X2 M/c-Nottingham via Heanor), but it is unclear whether these could carry local passengers. The current bus service (TP) is hourly (2 hourly on Sundays), so hasn't dwindled, unlike most routes over the last 50 years. In my view, this public transport service provision is adequate and there is no rationale whatsoever in attempting to reopen this closed rail route.

Incidentally, the Macclesfield-Buxton route (58) is far better than it was 50 years ago, with an hourly daytime Mon-Sat service, although the Sunday journeys have been withdrawn (?temporarily).

In fairness an hourly frequency between Buxton, Matlock and Derby is about right, it is a shame that the bus times don’t coordinate with the trains.

The other issue is that the buses no longer run after 6pm in the evening.

The former Trent operated TransPeak, although for the most part ran only every 2 hours, but at least it did run in the dark!

Indeed the 58 between Buxton and Macclesfield is probably as frequent as it has ever been, and this was made possible by amalgamating a couple of ‘town’ services in both Macclesfield and Buxton.

 

[Hey 3]

London service?!!! Are you mad, or just a luftmensch?

No, a London service would call at these stations
Chorlton(1tp2h), East Didsbury, Cheadle Heath,
Derby, Leicester, Market Harbrough, Bedford, Luton/Luton Airport(1tp2h each) and London St Pancras Intl.

 

[Killingworth]

No, a London service would call at these stations
Chorlton(1tp2h), East Didsbury, Cheadle Heath,
Derby, Leicester, Market Harbrough, Bedford, Luton/Luton Airport(1tp2h each) and London St Pancras Intl.

Wow, we'd all like a few stops south of Leicester on the current trains, but there isn't room for them so no chance of any new trains doing that.

 

[Greybeard33]

A number of posts upthread rubbished my suggestion of reopening Great Rocks to Matlock as a freight only line for aggregate trains from the Buxton quarries to the Midlands and South. However, an August 2020 Network Rail study, Routeing of rail freight forecasts, proposed this as an option to accommodate future traffic growth up to 2044:

The continuing growth in construction trains from the Peak District to the Midlands and South creates congestion at Dore Junction.
This congestion seriously exacerbated by passenger aspirations
- Northern Powerhouse Rail objective to increase speed and frequency between Manchester and Sheffield via the Hope Valley
- HS2 eastern leg which will ‘return’ high speed trains to MML at Clay Cross and to use the MML via Chesterfield and Dore Junction to Sheffield.
No existing alternatives are available but the reopening of rail routes presently used for either the Monsal Trail (Peak Forest – Matlock) or Tissington Trail (Hindlow - Uttoxeter) could provide alternative and diversionary routes (the latter avoids Derby but is much less direct).
There would be benefits to cross-country passenger services which may otherwise be diverted from Sheffield via the ‘old road’ (via Barrow Hill).

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Routeing-of-rail-freight-forecasts.pdf

 

[johnnychips]

^ the word is ‘could’ not ‘will’.

 

[Hardcastle]

What i cant understand is what happens with the Monsal trail tunnels when cyclists walkers & trains pass through them at the same time it does not bear thinking about.

 

[Greybeard33]

^ the word is ‘could’ not ‘will’.

...as is appropriate in a Speculative Ideas thread!

 

[Tobbes]

What i cant understand is what happens with the Monsal trail tunnels when cyclists walkers & trains pass through them at the same time it does not bear thinking about.

The trail would have to be rerouted.... and as a cyclist/walker (when such things are allowed!), I'd be sorry to see the Monsal trail go, but if there's a real need for the route to reopen, then reopen it will.

 

[Hardcastle]

The trail would have to be rerouted.... and as a cyclist/walker (when such things are allowed!), I'd be sorry to see the Monsal trail go, but if there's a real need for the route to reopen, then reopen it will.

I walked the trail before the tunnels reopened & it was a total nightmare of a route over the tops i can't see how a cycle route would get round it to be of any use.

 

[Greybeard33]

I walked the trail before the tunnels reopened & it was a total nightmare of a route over the tops i can't see how a cycle route would get round it to be of any use.

In Millers Dale and Chee Dale, I imagine the cycleway would be diverted to contour round above the river on a ledge cut into the hillside instead of going through the tunnels. Longer but better views than from inside the tunnel!

This would be a costly construction project, but (re)building a railway does not come cheap.

 

[Killingworth]

A number of posts upthread rubbished my suggestion of reopening Great Rocks to Matlock as a freight only line for aggregate trains from the Buxton quarries to the Midlands and South. However, an August 2020 Network Rail study, Routeing of rail freight forecasts, proposed this as an option to accommodate future traffic growth up to 2044:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Routeing-of-rail-freight-forecasts.pdf

It also says "No existing alternatives are available but the reopening of rail routes presently used for either the Monsal Trail (Peak Forest – Matlock) or Tissington Trail (Hindlow - Uttoxeter) could provide alternative and diversionary routes (the latter avoids Derby but is much less direct)."

A very quick look at an OS map will tell that using the Tissington Trail to Uttoxeter is a basket case, not just less direct. About 30 miles of new construction on the old route with numerous road crossings, some built since the original line was lifted. New industrial and other buildings in Ashbourne, Rocester and Uttoxeter would be challenging to work around, although JCB may lend a hand to demolish and rebuild the attractive landscaped frontage and ornamental lakes of their international headquarters at Rocester. They are across the site of the old railway.

That sort of statement is put into papers like this to illustrate that there are no easy solutions - and that one isn't remotely feasible. You could spend an awful lot of money more productively on the Hope Valley route without it costing more than that as a solution.

However, restoring old lines is not the only solution that should be considered. Constructing a few much shorter new chords and grade separated junctions may be more cost effective. However, the Network Rail freight study speaks of Dore Junction. There are three.

Currently Dore West is the worst but by the end of 2023 that should be resolved when the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme is completed adding a loop for trains moving between the Hope Valley and MML, with redoubling for about 1km through the station.

Dore Station Junction is less of a problem but could be aided by extending an effective extra loop north of Dore & Totley Station, possibly even 4 tracking as far as the Abbey Lane, or even Archer Road bridge. Another option could be making it bi-directional through the station - very little new track for that other than two sets of points and signalling. Timing of empty wagons crossing the northbound MML is the main issue here.

Dore South Junction is the biggest difficulty. Northbound empty wagons aren't an issue. The train has to slow for the tight curve through Dore Tunnel, but impedes mainline traffic for only a few minutes. It's southbound heavy stone traffic coming off the Hope Valley that is the difficulty. Those trains are heavily laden, on a curve, and uphill into Bradway Tunnel. They require gaps in mainline traffic going north and south. I live almost directly above this bottleneck and don't see a solution. (Unless someone suggests a new parallel Bradway freight tunnel - it would be easier than using the Tissington trail idea. The current one is only 1.853 km long.)

The study should also have mentioned the 6 minute block through Totley Tunnel. That could be resolved by better monitoring and signalling of trains as they pass through.

What passenger demand will exist by 2024 remains to be seen. Extra trains may no longer be needed, longer may possibly be more effective.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2021 ==

What i cant understand is what happens with the Monsal trail tunnels when cyclists walkers & trains pass through them at the same time it does not bear thinking about.

I understand the latest bid documentation submitted this week includes a specific plan for diverting the Monsal Trail away from the tunnels. It would be good if that plan could be made public so we can all see how acceptable and practical it is likely to be.

 

[furnessvale]

I walked the trail before the tunnels reopened & it was a total nightmare of a route over the tops i can't see how a cycle route would get round it to be of any use.

MEMRAP are developing a high quality replacement for the existing trail.

 

[Greybeard33]

Dore South Junction is the biggest difficulty. Northbound empty wagons aren't an issue. The train has to slow for the tight curve through Dore Tunnel, but impedes mainline traffic for only a few minutes. It's southbound heavy stone traffic coming off the Hope Valley that is the difficulty. Those trains are heavily laden, on a curve, and uphill into Bradway Tunnel. They require gaps in mainline traffic going north and south. I live almost directly above this bottleneck and don't see a solution. (Unless someone suggests a new parallel Bradway freight tunnel - it would be easier than using the Tissington trail idea. The current one is only 1.853 km long.)

In principle grade separation of Dore South Junction would be a solution. A new, single track, southbound only line diverging from the existing chord before Dore Tunnel and diving down in a new tunnel under the main line. Then curving south, still underground, and continuing in the new tunnel to the east of the existing Bradway Tunnel. With a new junction somewhere beyond the southern portal of the existing tunnel. About 2.5km of new single track tunnel.

Post HS2 I guess partial quadding (dynamic loops) might also be needed between Dore and Chesterfield.

I have no idea how the cost of this scheme would compare with Great Rocks to Matlock reopening. I guess a lot would depend on the geology at Dore and Bradway and the cost of land acquisition either end of the new tunnel, including a site large enough to assemble and launch the Tunnel Boring Machine.

 

[zwk500]

A number of posts upthread rubbished my suggestion of reopening Great Rocks to Matlock as a freight only line for aggregate trains from the Buxton quarries to the Midlands and South. However, an August 2020 Network Rail study, Routeing of rail freight forecasts, proposed this as an option to accommodate future traffic growth up to 2044:

The key part of this report is in the introduction:

The particular objective of this exercise is to develop and apply active routeing decisions to the forecasts, including identifying diversionary routes and further opportunities to enhance the network where relevant. These decisions were based on a stakeholder meeting and subsequent consultation.

In short, the report is there to inform further studies. It makes absolutely no judgement on the economic, operational or engineering feasibility of any of it's proposals beyond background industry knowledge. The appearance of the Peak Line in this report indicates nothing more than the fact that NR are aware of it as an option. It is not a recommendation that the line be examined, nor that any serious work is intended to be carried out. Several other lines identified in that report have already been dropped at further study stage, for one reason or another.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2021 ==

Dore South Junction is the biggest difficulty. Northbound empty wagons aren't an issue. The train has to slow for the tight curve through Dore Tunnel, but impedes mainline traffic for only a few minutes. It's southbound heavy stone traffic coming off the Hope Valley that is the difficulty. Those trains are heavily laden, on a curve, and uphill into Bradway Tunnel. They require gaps in mainline traffic going north and south. I live almost directly above this bottleneck and don't see a solution. (Unless someone suggests a new parallel Bradway freight tunnel - it would be easier than using the Tissington trail idea. The current one is only 1.853 km long.)

The biggest issue for southbound freight is that they can't be held on the chord between the lines. So the gap from Edale to Totley must line up with the gap onto the MML to Chesterfield. The new loop will ease this problem somewhat, but what it could really do with is Dore South jn being moved further south, and the line doubled so southbound traffic can clear the Hope Valley and wait for the path on the MML. This would require some substantial earth moving and possibly isn't possible within the current overrun standards.

The study should also have mentioned the 6 minute block through Totley Tunnel. That could be resolved by better monitoring and signalling of trains as they pass through.

As mentioned in the Hope Valley upgrade thread, a G/YY/Y only signal in the middle of the tunnel would be the easiest way to do this.

In principle grade separation of Dore South Junction would be a solution. A new, single track, southbound only line diverging from the existing chord before Dore Tunnel and diving down in a new tunnel under the main line. Then curving south, still underground, and continuing in the new tunnel to the east of the existing Bradway Tunnel. With a new junction somewhere beyond the southern portal of the existing tunnel. About 2.5km of new single track tunnel.

You'd never get the gradients within the limits of the standards, to get low enough to clear the MML. The only feasible way I could see grade separation happening would be to move Dore South junction further south, open out Bradway tunnel and raise the Down MML up and over an extremely tightly curved southbound chord. But here gradients would again be a problem as the line will need to be able to accept northbound freight via Sheffield in the event the Barrow Hills are closed.

Post HS2 I guess partial quadding (dynamic loops) might also be needed between Dore and Chesterfield.

It depends on the arrangements for HS2 joining in, but I would guess not as Chesterfield has a 4-track section anyway and if HS2 joins north of Chesterfield it's a relatively straightforward flighting of HS, Long Distance, Local.

P.S. apologies for the monster post.

 

[Tobbes]

The key part of this report is in the introduction:

In short, the report is there to inform further studies. It makes absolutely no judgement on the economic, operational or engineering feasibility of any of it's proposals beyond background industry knowledge. The appearance of the Peak Line in this report indicates nothing more than the fact that NR are aware of it as an option. It is not a recommendation that the line be examined, nor that any serious work is intended to be carried out. Several other lines identified in that report have already been dropped at further study stage, for one reason or another.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2021 ==


The biggest issue for southbound freight is that they can't be held on the chord between the lines. So the gap from Edale to Totley must line up with the gap onto the MML to Chesterfield. The new loop will ease this problem somewhat, but what it could really do with is Dore South jn being moved further south, and the line doubled so southbound traffic can clear the Hope Valley and wait for the path on the MML. This would require some substantial earth moving and possibly isn't possible within the current overrun standards.

As mentioned in the Hope Valley upgrade thread, a G/YY/Y only signal in the middle of the tunnel would be the easiest way to do this.


You'd never get the gradients within the limits of the standards, to get low enough to clear the MML. The only feasible way I could see grade separation happening would be to move Dore South junction further south, open out Bradway tunnel and raise the Down MML up and over an extremely tightly curved southbound chord. But here gradients would again be a problem as the line will need to be able to accept northbound freight via Sheffield in the event the Barrow Hills are closed.

It depends on the arrangements for HS2 joining in, but I would guess not as Chesterfield has a 4-track section anyway and if HS2 joins north of Chesterfield it's a relatively straightforward flighting of HS, Long Distance, Local.

P.S. apologies for the monster post.

Very informative, many thanks for taking the time and trouble!

 

[Killingworth]

The key part of this report is in the introduction:

In short, the report is there to inform further studies. It makes absolutely no judgement on the economic, operational or engineering feasibility of any of it's proposals beyond background industry knowledge. The appearance of the Peak Line in this report indicates nothing more than the fact that NR are aware of it as an option. It is not a recommendation that the line be examined, nor that any serious work is intended to be carried out. Several other lines identified in that report have already been dropped at further study stage, for one reason or another.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2021 ==


The biggest issue for southbound freight is that they can't be held on the chord between the lines. So the gap from Edale to Totley must line up with the gap onto the MML to Chesterfield. The new loop will ease this problem somewhat, but what it could really do with is Dore South jn being moved further south, and the line doubled so southbound traffic can clear the Hope Valley and wait for the path on the MML. This would require some substantial earth moving and possibly isn't possible within the current overrun standards.

As mentioned in the Hope Valley upgrade thread, a G/YY/Y only signal in the middle of the tunnel would be the easiest way to do this.


You'd never get the gradients within the limits of the standards, to get low enough to clear the MML. The only feasible way I could see grade separation happening would be to move Dore South junction further south, open out Bradway tunnel and raise the Down MML up and over an extremely tightly curved southbound chord. But here gradients would again be a problem as the line will need to be able to accept northbound freight via Sheffield in the event the Barrow Hills are closed.

The Hope Valley Scheme includes a third track from West View Lane almost to Dore tunnel. Dore West Junctions will be altered to allow bi-directional working on that. However, holding a southbound loaded train will be challenging if it has to restart on the tight, uphill curve through that little tunnel. Challenging more for the time it takes to get restarted to fit into that southbound path. Currently trains are sometimes held at night, but they block the Hope Valley line.

Dore tunnel used to be twin track. It's partially through spoil dumped from Bradway Tunnel and the deep Twentywell Sick cutting.

Bradway Tunnel was constructed from 8 shafts in quite quick time. Most if it is below Dore & Totley golf course The air shafts are dotted along a ridge of spoil above the tunnel where Network Rail still owned the land a few years ago, and may still.

But suggesting a new tunnel is very much in the realms of optimistic over speculation. It could be done, but let's leave it there.

 

[Greybeard33]

The only feasible way I could see grade separation happening would be to move Dore South junction further south, open out Bradway tunnel and raise the Down MML up and over an extremely tightly curved southbound chord. But here gradients would again be a problem as the line will need to be able to accept northbound freight via Sheffield in the event the Barrow Hills are closed.

I think it is worse than that, because the MML falls continuously at 1 in 100 from the far end of Bradway Tunnel right down into the Sheaf Valley. So the Down line would need to fall even more steeply from the flyover to get down to the original level over the 1200m to Dore Station Junction.

Even if the flying junction could be squeezed in here, it would still leave the problem that a southbound laden freight entering the main line has to struggle up 1.7km of 1 in 100, through Bradway Tunnel, from a standing start, before it can begin to pick up speed.

The 2-track Dore to Chesterfield line is fundamentally unsuited to a mix of express passenger and heavy freight trains. Hence the attraction of a reopened Peak Line as an alternative freight route.

 

[Bevan Price]

Use of buses between Derby, Matlock, Buxton & Manchester is never going to attract loads of passengers because they are mostly too slow. And they have one major problem -- they all use the A6, which on busy days becomes a long series of traffic jams / queues. A decent rail service would almost certainly attract much better loads than the current bus services - although initially insufficient to cover all the operating costs.