Buxton to Matlock - The missing link

[Hey 3]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Llandudno]

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.

No the buses won’t attract lots of passengers because:

They stop running at 6pm
The south bound buses do not operate via Matlock Station, the bus stop is 800m away
The hourly bus service from Buxton arrives in Matlock just as the train departs, resulting in a 55 minute wait for the train
No through bus/rail ticketing

Remember most of the route along the A6 between Buxton and Matlock is in the Peak District National Park, yet no attempt is made to discourage car use with a coordinated bus/rail link between the two branch line stubs.

At least electric cars on the horizon, if you can find somewhere to park and charge them up!

 

[Dr Hoo]

Whilst not dissenting from the general point that better integration of bus and rail services would make public transport more attractive it is only fair to mention the popular Derbyshire Wayfarer ticket. This is valid on most buses and trains in the area (after 0900 on weekdays) and to 'just outside' the county, e.g. to Sheffield and Macclesfield. Not towards Manchester beyond New Mills though.

 

[Llandudno]

Whilst not dissenting from the general point that better integration of bus and rail services would make public transport more attractive it is only fair to mention the popular Derbyshire Wayfarer ticket. This is valid on most buses and trains in the area (after 0900 on weekdays) and to 'just outside' the county, e.g. to Sheffield and Macclesfield. Not towards Manchester beyond New Mills though.

Indeed the Derbyshire Wayfarer is a useful ticket and worth remembering that the OAP ticket is available for ANYONE over 60 for half price - £6.70

Although not valid in Greater Manchester it is valid to Sheffield, so Hope Valley to Chesterfield and Derby journeys via Sheffield are possible. There are no time restrictions on buses and as posted earlier not valid on trains before 0900 on weekdays.
Just a note of caution tickets can only be bought from staffed railway stations, selected tourist information centres and from bus drivers (unlike the TfGM Wayfarer).
As usual they cannot be bought from station ticket machines.

 

[ashkeba]

Indeed the Derbyshire Wayfarer is a useful ticket and worth remembering that the OAP ticket is available for ANYONE over 60 for half price - £6.70

Although not valid in Greater Manchester it is valid to Sheffield, so Hope Valley to Chesterfield and Derby journeys via Sheffield are possible. There are no time restrictions on buses and as posted earlier not valid on trains before 0900 on weekdays.
Just a note of caution tickets can only be bought from staffed railway stations, selected tourist information centres and from bus drivers (unlike the TfGM Wayfarer).
As usual they cannot be bought from station ticket machines.

Why is this hidden with a silly name and not called a Day Ranger or Travelpass?

 

[WideRanger]

Why is this hidden with a silly name and not called a Day Ranger or Travelpass?

I remember taking the Derbyshire Wayfarer around 35 years ago. There was something similar (but not as good) in Nottinghamshire, called the Sherwood Forester. Happy, happy days...

At that time, it seemed to be targeted at people living inside Derbyshire, or just outside. If it became very well known, it might get rather pricey for the taxpayers of Derbyshire...

 

[ashkeba]

At that time, it seemed to be targeted at people living inside Derbyshire, or just outside. If it became very well known, it might get rather pricey for the taxpayers of Derbyshire...

Wouldn't that be covered by increased taxes paid by tourists and tourism businesses? And maybe by some decarbonisation tax rebates from national government? The congested polluted roads deter some visitors.

 

[Llandudno]

I remember taking the Derbyshire Wayfarer around 35 years ago. There was something similar (but not as good) in Nottinghamshire, called the Sherwood Forester. Happy, happy days...

At that time, it seemed to be targeted at people living inside Derbyshire, or just outside. If it became very well known, it might get rather pricey for the taxpayers of Derbyshire...

I doubt that DCC subsidise the ticket.

They ‘help market’ and apportion sales revenue for the ticket that’s all as far as I am aware?

 

[D6130]

Whilst not dissenting from the general point that better integration of bus and rail services would make public transport more attractive it is only fair to mention the popular Derbyshire Wayfarer ticket. This is valid on most buses and trains in the area (after 0900 on weekdays) and to 'just outside' the county, e.g. to Sheffield and Macclesfield. Not towards Manchester beyond New Mills though.

Is the Derbyshire Wayfarer ticket valid for cross-border travel to Leek - either from Ashbourne or Buxton?

 

[zwk500]

Is the Derbyshire Wayfarer ticket valid for cross-border travel to Leek - either from Ashbourne or Buxton?

Validity of Derbyshire Wayfarer - Derbyshire County Council

www.derbyshire.gov.uk

there's a link to a PDF map at the bottom

 

[Llandudno]

Is the Derbyshire Wayfarer ticket valid for cross-border travel to Leek - either from Ashbourne or Buxton?

Yes, it is valid.

You need to plan your day carefully though, there aren’t that many buses!

 

[D6130]

Yes, it is valid.

You need to plan your day carefully though, there aren’t that many buses!

Many thanks!

 

[johnnychips]

Walked the Monsal Trail today, and there are many signs saying ’Save our Monsal Trail.’ ‘Sign the Petition’. I couldn’t remember a web address so i googled it and it eventually led to a site called change.org which was asking for money or to retweet or email the petition to others. Is this a scam?

Incidentally, you could not have a single track railway with the trail on the other side of the trackbed. It’s one or the other, whatever your opinion!

 

[furnessvale]

Walked the Monsal Trail today, and there are many signs saying ’Save our Monsal Trail.’ ‘Sign the Petition’. I couldn’t remember a web address so i googled it and it eventually led to a site called change.org which was asking for money or to retweet or email the petition to others. Is this a scam?

Incidentally, you could not have a single track railway with the trail on the other side of the trackbed. It’s one or the other, whatever your opinion!

The MEMRAP scheme provides a double track railway AND a repositioned, improved Monsal Trail.

 

[johnnychips]

That would be interesting. Have you got a link so I could read it?

 

[21C101]

I guess if you did reopen it you would have to extend the Manchester to Buxton service to Millers Dale so you could actually get to Buxton on it.

Manchester, Stockport, Chinley, Millers Dale, Bakewell, Rowsley, Darley Dale, Matlock and stations to Derby would be popular in summer but not so much in winter.

The hard fact is that we have to find a way of getting a substantial amount of freight/parcels back on to the railways to make such routes viable, as finding someone to pay for a reserved trackway for a two car train every hour and nothing else is always going to be a struggle.

In the meanwhile a grant to help extend the heritage line to Bakewell would probably be the best course of action.

 

[Killingworth]

Walked the Monsal Trail today, and there are many signs saying ’Save our Monsal Trail.’ ‘Sign the Petition’. I couldn’t remember a web address so i googled it and it eventually led to a site called change.org which was asking for money or to retweet or email the petition to others. Is this a scam?

Incidentally, you could not have a single track railway with the trail on the other side of the trackbed. It’s one or the other, whatever your opinion!

Presumbly a poster like this one? The URL given is now out of date and is now; https://www.change.org/p/department-for-transport-save-the-monsal-trail?redirect=false

I've yet to see the proposed alternative Monsal Trail route to avoid the current somewhat boring old railway track.

 

[yorksrob]

Is there a counter-petition that I could sign ?

I'm sick of these cyclists and the like squatting on a closed railway line then squealing when we try to reopen them.

 

[furnessvale]

Is there a counter-petition that I could sign ?

I'm sick of these cyclists and the like squatting on a closed railway line then squealing when we try to reopen them.

Sign the Petition

Re-open the Railway between Matlock, Bakewell, Buxton and Manchester

www.change.org

This links to the reopening petition.

Reading the notice from the cyclists, who arrive by car with the bikes on the roof, would prefer the stone to move by road instead.

 

[Killingworth]

Is there a counter-petition that I could sign ?

I'm sick of these cyclists and the like squatting on a closed railway line then squealing when we try to reopen them.

It's here; https://www.change.org/p/re-open-the-railway-between-matlock-bakewell-buxton-and-manchester

 

[Hey 3]

Sign the Petition

Re-open the Railway between Matlock, Bakewell, Buxton and Manchester

www.change.org

This links to the reopening petition.

Reading the notice from the cyclists, who arrive by car with the bikes on the roof, would prefer the stone to move by road instead.

I have realised how the petition is a white elephant, Parliament do not have a legal obligation to look at this if it is not on their petition page.
Edit: I signed and realised after

 

[yorksrob]

Sign the Petition

Re-open the Railway between Matlock, Bakewell, Buxton and Manchester

www.change.org

This links to the reopening petition.

Reading the notice from the cyclists, who arrive by car with the bikes on the roof, would prefer the stone to move by road instead.

It's here; https://www.change.org/p/re-open-the-railway-between-matlock-bakewell-buxton-and-manchester

Cheers.

The idea of cyclists preferring heavy lorries on the roads is lunacy.

 

[Hey 3]

Cheers.

The idea of cyclists preferring heavy lorries on the roads is lunacy.

I agree that more lorries is crazy.

 

[A0]

I guess if you did reopen it you would have to extend the Manchester to Buxton service to Millers Dale so you could actually get to Buxton on it.

Manchester, Stockport, Chinley, Millers Dale, Bakewell, Rowsley, Darley Dale, Matlock and stations to Derby would be popular in summer but not so much in winter.

The hard fact is that we have to find a way of getting a substantial amount of freight/parcels back on to the railways to make such routes viable, as finding someone to pay for a reserved trackway for a two car train every hour and nothing else is always going to be a struggle.

In the meanwhile a grant to help extend the heritage line to Bakewell would probably be the best course of action.

It also has to be the right kind of freight - and that won't be parcels by and large. Rail is most effective at moving large, heavy or bulky loads between 2 points. The misty-eyed romanticism of a few parcels being dropped off and picked up at each station along a line is a non-starter - that won't be financially viable.

The issue with Matlock - Buxton / Chinley is there is only one kind of freight likely to use it - stone traffic, question is whether there's enough of that to warrant the line being re-opened. Using Bald Rick's oft cited £ 40m / mile as the de-minimis costs, with a distance of circa 16 miles, that's £ 640m - you can bet it would be more by the time the planning process had been completed, mitigations made, improvements to the line to bring it up to heavy freight standards, compensatory payments to Peak Rail plus various other parties and the need to put an alternative to the Monsal Trail in place. There are far better ways to spend that kind of money, even on the rail network.

 

[yorksrob]

It also has to be the right kind of freight - and that won't be parcels by and large. Rail is most effective at moving large, heavy or bulky loads between 2 points. The misty-eyed romanticism of a few parcels being dropped off and picked up at each station along a line is a non-starter - that won't be financially viable.

The issue with Matlock - Buxton / Chinley is there is only one kind of freight likely to use it - stone traffic, question is whether there's enough of that to warrant the line being re-opened. Using Bald Rick's oft cited £ 40m / mile as the de-minimis costs, with a distance of circa 16 miles, that's £ 640m - you can bet it would be more by the time the planning process had been completed, mitigations made, improvements to the line to bring it up to heavy freight standards, compensatory payments to Peak Rail plus various other parties and the need to put an alternative to the Monsal Trail in place. There are far better ways to spend that kind of money, even on the rail network.

We shouldn't get too caught up in the narrative of parcels being all steam age drop offs. Red Star worked well enough right up until privatisation.

 

[zwk500]

Cheers.

The idea of cyclists preferring heavy lorries on the roads is lunacy.

Cars are dangerous enough to cyclists (well, drivers are the danger but that's a separate discussion), whereas more lorries on roads the cyclists aren't using doesn't bother them. If somebody came up with a detailed plan for an alternative off-road path for Cyclists to use that allowed the railway back I suspect they'd become rather more apathetic. From the reinstatement point of view, it's entirely possible the original formation isn't suitable for a modern heavy freight line, so any conflict with users of the Monsal Trail would be moot.

The business case is the first priority - only once that is known can the decision be made about how to best accommodate the different modal groups.

 

[A0]

Cheers.

The idea of cyclists preferring heavy lorries on the roads is lunacy.

Erm, no. All you're doing is demonstrating false equivalence.

The point you're overlooking is whilst many cyclists may use the Monsal Trail, they wouldn't necessarily cycle along the A6. They're not saying they want more lorries on the roads, merely that they don't want a long-disused railway line which has been transformed into a useful leisure facility for walkers and cyclists to be lost.

I fail to see why rebuilding this line is considered the right option in any case. Surely it would make *far more* sense to look at where the stone traffic is originating, where it's heading to and work out from there what the right solution is. Just because the Midland Railway build a line through the peak district in the 1850s doesn't mean that route is the right one now. Currently there's limited capacity south of Ambergate on the Midland Mainline, reopening Matlock - Buxton and increasing its use would mean more pressure further down the line.

 

[yorksrob]

Cars are dangerous enough to cyclists (well, drivers are the danger but that's a separate discussion), whereas more lorries on roads the cyclists aren't using doesn't bother them. If somebody came up with a detailed plan for an alternative off-road path for Cyclists to use that allowed the railway back I suspect they'd become rather more apathetic. From the reinstatement point of view, it's entirely possible the original formation isn't suitable for a modern heavy freight line, so any conflict with users of the Monsal Trail would be moot.

The business case is the first priority - only once that is known can the decision be made about how to best accommodate the different modal groups.

I was under the impression that the whole proposal involved the re-routing of the path, which by definition must involve another route being made available.

Erm, no. All you're doing is demonstrating false equivalence.

The point you're overlooking is whilst many cyclists may use the Monsal Trail, they wouldn't necessarily cycle along the A6. They're not saying they want more lorries on the roads, merely that they don't want a long-disused railway line which has been transformed into a useful leisure facility for walkers and cyclists to be lost.

I fail to see why rebuilding this line is considered the right option in any case. Surely it would make *far more* sense to look at where the stone traffic is originating, where it's heading to and work out from there what the right solution is. Just because the Midland Railway build a line through the peak district in the 1850s doesn't mean that route is the right one now. Currently there's limited capacity south of Ambergate on the Midland Mainline, reopening Matlock - Buxton and increasing its use would mean more pressure further down the line.

See my posts earlier on in this thread forvwhy the route is a good one for rail.

 

[A0]

We shouldn't get too caught up in the narrative of parcels being all steam age drop offs. Red Star worked well enough right up until privatisation.

No, it really didn't.

Even then Red Star was a relatively expensive way to carry parcels. Nowadays customers expect delivery to their door - not the nearest railway station several miles away.

And parcels as a business is relatively low margin - the failure of City Link a couple of years back showed that.

You really have no idea about commercial viability. Instead you're stuck in a 'it worked in the 1970s and I liked it so it should work now' mentality - unfortunately for you the world has moved on and your way of thinking is at best out of date.

 

[yorksrob]

No, it really didn't.

Even then Red Star was a relatively expensive way to carry parcels. Nowadays customers expect delivery to their door - not the nearest railway station several miles away.

And parcels as a business is relatively low margin - the failure of City Link a couple of years back showed that.

You really have no idea about commercial viability. Instead you're stuck in a 'it worked in the 1970s and I liked it so it should work now' mentality - unfortunately for you the world has moved on and your way of thinking is at best out of date.

There have been various enterprises in recent years around parcels and small freight. Seafood from Cornwall, moveable freight trolleys etc.

You're stuck in a 90's mindset.