• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Peaks and Dales line - feasibility study submitted

Sir Felix Pole

Established Member
Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
2,172
Location
Wilmslow
The original intention of the Monsal Trail was to preserve the alignment of the railway for future reuse. Since then, the Peak District National Park authority have changed their position to support retaining the cycle path at the expense of a reopened railway.

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

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

Yes, and the trail doesn't go into Buxton which would be more use - from the Wyedale Car Park you have to ride along the treacherous A6. You have to be a pretty fearless (or suicidal) cyclist to attempt that with the stone lorries thundering past! There is no realistic alternative either.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,652
Location
Hope Valley
The original intention of the Monsal Trail was to preserve the alignment of the railway for future reuse. Since then, the Peak District National Park authority have changed their position to support retaining the cycle path at the expense of a reopened railway.

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

Any idea that the Monsal Trail is environmentally friendly is for the birds.
Do you have a source for this assertion? Is the the Peak District National Park even a recognised transport planning authority? Those responsibilities usually rest with County Councils or other elected local authorities.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the National Park attracts a vast number of road vehicle users accessing its various attractions. Besides cyclists for the railway trails there are caravans, camper vans, horse boxes, motorcyclists, people coming for various types of gliding, hiking, climbing, cave exploration, ornithology, fishing, photography, eating, drinking, crafts, etc., etc....
 

Western Lord

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
1,062
I'm confused by references to Buxton. If you are reinstating the original main line via Peak Forest, you are bypassing Buxton. The Midland line into Buxton was essentially a branch and the former Midland station in Buxton is long gone (buried under Station Way and Devonshire Place). There is no access from the Midland line to the existing station and indeed, no direct connection between the Midland line and the Buxton-Manchester line.
 

Zomboid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
2,289
Location
Oxford
Aren't former rail alignments protected from development anyway? They're putting a bridge over HS2 for the Rugby - Leamington line rather than obliterating it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I'm confused by references to Buxton. If you are reinstating the original main line via Peak Forest, you are bypassing Buxton. The Midland line into Buxton was essentially a branch and the former Midland station in Buxton is long gone (buried under Station Way and Devonshire Place). There is no access from the Midland line to the existing station and indeed, no direct connection between the Midland line and the Buxton-Manchester line.
That's ancient history and isn't relevant to today. If the line were built then linking Buxton to Matlock and combining the stopping services would presumably be part of the plan, rather than finding another non existent path into Manchester. Maybe the "express" would go to Chinley...
 
Last edited:

Western Lord

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
1,062
Aren't former rail alignments protected from development anyway? They're putting a bridge over HS2 for the Rugby - Leamington line rather than obliterating it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


That's ancient history and isn't relevant to today. If the line were built then linking Buxton to Matlock and combining the stopping services would presumably be part of the plan, rather than finding another non existent path into Manchester. Maybe the "express" would go to Chinley...
Where are you putting a station in Buxton that could serve both lines?
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,907
Yes, and the trail doesn't go into Buxton which would be more use - from the Wyedale Car Park you have to ride along the treacherous A6. You have to be a pretty fearless (or suicidal) cyclist to attempt that with the stone lorries thundering past! There is no realistic alternative either.
Thanks for the confirmation that cycles arrive in the Peak Park on top of cars rather than by train, which would be more easily achieved from a railway down the Wye Valley.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,372
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Thanks for the confirmation that cycles arrive in the Peak Park on top of cars rather than by train, which would be more easily achieved from a railway down the Wye Valley.

Given the number of cycles arriving on busy days, if there was a railway here then I can’t see it accommodating more than a drop-in-the-ocean proportion of visiting cyclists. Many people choose to hire cycles however, and potentially these people could come by train.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,907
Do you have a source for this assertion? Is the the Peak District National Park even a recognised transport planning authority? Those responsibilities usually rest with County Councils or other elected local authorities.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the National Park attracts a vast number of road vehicle users accessing its various attractions. Besides cyclists for the railway trails there are caravans, camper vans, horse boxes, motorcyclists, people coming for various types of gliding, hiking, climbing, cave exploration, ornithology, fishing, photography, eating, drinking, crafts, etc., etc....
1. I would need to go back a good few years to find the original PDNP documents but it was there. Time and money spent on the Monsal Trail changed their views. Yes they are not the ultimate transport authority but their views carry weight.

2. Further confirmation that the Peak is groaning under the weight of road traffic which also includes HGVs.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,056
Piccadilly is an issue if you wanted extra services, it would either have to be the existing 1tph Picc-Buxton extended downwards to merge with some Matlock services, or freeing up some capacity at Piccadilly by other means (NPR anyone?).

The alternative is turning things at Stockport but that isn't ideal and also might be constrained
There are a lot of wasted paths at Piccadilly. Letting Metrolink run the route via Hyde Central to Rose Hill Marple with a tram train would free up two paths an hour.

Another path is being wasted providing Styal with a direct service to Piccadilly
 

Topological

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
4,295
Location
Swansea
There is a neat report on the usage of the Monsal Trail here: Report on 2024 Active Travel in Peak District

• Initially installed as part of the Pedal Peak II Project

• Average Combined Daily 2-way flow of 1,056

• Busiest Month – August • Anomalous totals for January due to waxwings

(With apologies for the formatting of the quoted text from the slide)

So just over 1000 counted users of the Monsal Trail per day on average. The peak in August 2024 was 1900. These are not exactly huge numbers if every single user took the train.

The Peak District as a whole reports 500,000 visitors. That would be something for rail to go at. However, that is the whole Peak District and will include many attractions and towns far from the proposed reopening. (Note that this number is wrong. I have dug out more numbers and the Peak District estimated visitor number is between 13 million and 26 million per year - see later post).

In the best case you are replicating the Hope Valley Line stoppers with user numbers on a train. In the same best case you are also not reducing the number of people using the Hope Valley Line stoppers. IF people start substituting Hope Valley destinations for Peaks and Dales then you might tip the equilibrium so that nothing is sustainable.

It is not about being naysayers. The numbers just do not add up for Peaks and Dales.

If you really want to reduce cars, ban non-resident motor vehicles. Provide car parks on the edges of the Peak District and have regular electric buses running around in a taktfahrplan approach. That would be a lot cheaper and make sure that you got rid of the cars.

Edit: Corrected visitor numbers based on further research
 
Last edited:

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,056
Not enough to carry more than the tiniest fraction of passengers who would benefit from HS2.
Route miles are irrelevant, what matters is passenger miles. And you need a lot of branch lines running 2-car Sprinters once an hour before you're in the same ballpark as a long-distance line with 400m trains running every 5 minutes.
This is true, but you could also have built heavy rail tunnels under Birmingham and Manchester for a fraction of the cost of HS2 and that really would have solved capacity problems!
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,711
Location
Leeds
If you really want to reduce cars, ban non-resident motor vehicles. Provide car parks on the edges of the Peak District and have regular electric buses running around in a taktfahrplan approach. That would be a lot cheaper and make sure that you got rid of the cars.
Just to add, before the inevitable comment; Arriva used to run a bike bus on one of their summer services in the Yorkshire Dales. I think they carried more bikes than a train would, using a trailer at the back. Cycle the bits you want to cycle, without having to take your own car there.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,652
Location
Hope Valley
1. I would need to go back a good few years to find the original PDNP documents but it was there. Time and money spent on the Monsal Trail changed their views. Yes they are not the ultimate transport authority but their views carry weight.

2. Further confirmation that the Peak is groaning under the weight of road traffic which also includes HGVs.
Could you clarify “the original PDNP documents”, please. Obviously the PDNP was established before closure/ re-use of the rail line was even a consideration.

I find it ironic that the very purpose of the original 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside legislation was “the opportunities that they afford for outdoor recreation…”, which now means that they are infested with road vehicles of various types.

I am also still baffled how closing the Monsal Trail, used by hundreds of thousands of people per year, to re-open the rail line is expected to get cyclists (and equestrians?) onto trains. In the absence of the trail they will presumably be expected to hire bikes in Bakewell or wherever and enjoy a ride on the A6 instead. Somehow I don’t see the attraction.
 

Topological

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
4,295
Location
Swansea
Could you clarify “the original PDNP documents”, please. Obviously the PDNP was established before closure/ re-use of the rail line was even a consideration.

I find it ironic that the very purpose of the original 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside legislation was “the opportunities that they afford for outdoor recreation…”, which now means that they are infested with road vehicles of various types.

I am also still baffled how closing the Monsal Trail, used by hundreds of thousands of people per year, to re-open the rail line is expected to get cyclists (and equestrians?) onto trains. In the absence of the trail they will presumably be expected to hire bikes in Bakewell or wherever and enjoy a ride on the A6 instead. Somehow I don’t see the attraction.
Where is this number coming from?

I linked a report which has average usage at 1056 per day. Those numbers are based on counted data.

The total visits to the Peak District National Park are estimated between 13 million and 26 million: Peak District Visitor Report

The number of tourist visits to an area the size of a national park is difficult to measure and not easily quantified. Moreover, there is no standard method available for assessing visitor numbers to an area, which often leads to uncertainty in the variability of the reported visitor numbers. We cannot say with certainty the number of visitors who come to the National Park. Using the available surveys and data we have, we know likely visitor volume to range somewhere between 13 million [1] and 26 million [2] per annum.

I have edited the numbers. Even though the figures are reported per month, for some reason they take the average count per day for the month and report that in the graph instead of either the total monthly, or having a smoothed daily plot. Not the best data visualisation there.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,372
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
There is a neat report on the usage of the Monsal Trail here: Report on 2024 Active Travel in Peak District







(With apologies for the formatting of the quoted text from the slide)

So just over 1000 counted users of the Monsal Trail per month on average. The peak in August 2024 was 1900. These are not exactly huge numbers if every single user took the train.

Those figures will be heavily skewed by rainy days in winter when there will be few users. I can absolutely guarantee that on sunny days during spring and summer usage will be significant higher than that.
 

Topological

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
4,295
Location
Swansea
Those figures will be heavily skewed by rainy days in winter when there will be few users. I can absolutely guarantee that on sunny days during spring and summer usage will be significant higher than that.
Please note there is a correction to that being per day but reported monthly. Still not big numbers, but 30x bigger than they would be if they were monthly.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,560
Location
Isle of Man
The original intention of the Monsal Trail was to preserve the alignment of the railway for future reuse.
The Monsal Trail opened in 1981. I don’t know what the Park Authority may or may not have said 47 years ago, but I’m not sure how relevant it is to today.
 

Topological

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
4,295
Location
Swansea
The Monsal Trail opened in 1981. I don’t know what the Park Authority may or may not have said 47 years ago, but I’m not sure how relevant it is to today.
Safeguarding the rail alignment was proposed to be dropped in 2025.

Link to meeting: Minutes

Tim further updated members on the Local Plan consultation, due to start in November 2025. Of particular interest to the PDLAF:

· The National Park currently safeguards land on the Monsal Trail and Trans Pennine Trail for future rail development. From the 2024 Local Plan stakeholder consultation feedback, it is proposed that safeguarding will be dropped for both trails in order to secure their recreational use.

· There will be a further proposal to safeguard land between Bakewell and Rowsley, and between Buxton and the Goyt Valley, for potential trail use.

· The Recreation Hub policy is out for consultation.



Action: Local Plan consultation details to be circulated to PDLAF members.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,560
Location
Isle of Man
may be wrong though, because I remember some occasions where the Rio got 20 minutes early, suggesting it was between the Northern and the EMR and that the Northern did not exist for some reason in that specific hour/day combination.
It used to be the case that, on weekdays, the Northern stopper only ran 2-hourly. Now it is hourly, so the path is being used.

Those figures will be heavily skewed by rainy days in winter when there will be few users. I can absolutely guarantee that on sunny days during spring and summer usage will be significant higher than that.
The figures account for that:
1777818796236.png
The chart above shows the use at Hassop station by month in 2024, including pedestrian use, cycle use, and combined. This shows about 600 people being counted per day in February, November, and December, but about 1800 people per day being counted in July and August.

What is very interesting is that the majority of people using the trail are pedestrians. So much for the trail attracting huge numbers of 4x4 vehicles with roof-mounted bike racks!

Safeguarding the rail alignment was proposed to be dropped in 2025.
Seems to be a technicality rather than anything more than that. Neither the Monsal Trail nor the Longdendale Trail are ever going to see a train again.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,652
Location
Hope Valley
The ‘hundreds of thousands’ users per year figure for the Monsal Trail is largely based on a counter at Hassop Station, which has clocked millions of passes over the years and generally supports a figure of over 300,000 per year.

Again, to state the obvious, not everyone will pass or use Hassop (e.g. those basing visits from Millers Dale) and the counting of human and animal legs, children in backpacks, tandems and so on is hardly an exact science. But the figure is widely quoted and accepted.

Nobody would suggest that the great majority of these uses are ‘active travel’ in the sense of deliberate point-to-point utility journeys. There will be a ‘core’ of trips to school or work in Bakewell from Hassop or wherever. Nobody could argue that the great bulk of trail usage is ‘optional’, taking the opportunity for open air recreation in the National Park, as parliament envisaged.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,560
Location
Isle of Man
There is no access from the Midland line to the existing station and indeed, no direct connection between the Midland line and the Buxton-Manchester line.
The line through Cheedale is connected to the Manchester-Buxton line just north of Buxton station, it’s just a faff requiring two reversals because of the layout. If we’re getting our crayons out to rebuild the line I’m sure this layout could be easily fixed. As could building a new station/platforms just to the north of Buxton station.
 

Western Lord

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
1,062
The line through Cheedale is connected to the Manchester-Buxton line just north of Buxton station, it’s just a faff requiring two reversals because of the layout. If we’re getting our crayons out to rebuild the line I’m sure this layout could be easily fixed. As could building a new station/platforms just to the north of Buxton station.
The double reversal is what I meant by no direct connection. I am not sure the locals would appreciate a less conveniently located station in Buxton.
 

Zomboid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
2,289
Location
Oxford
The double reversal is what I meant by no direct connection. I am not sure the locals would appreciate a less conveniently located station in Buxton.
That'd likely to be the cost of a train to Derby, though. The reversals could be removed pretty trivially given the lines are adjacent. It's just configured for trains from Hindlow to head towards Chinley.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,907
Could you clarify “the original PDNP documents”, please. Obviously the PDNP was established before closure/ re-use of the rail line was even a consideration.

I find it ironic that the very purpose of the original 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside legislation was “the opportunities that they afford for outdoor recreation…”, which now means that they are infested with road vehicles of various types.

I am also still baffled how closing the Monsal Trail, used by hundreds of thousands of people per year, to re-open the rail line is expected to get cyclists (and equestrians?) onto trains. In the absence of the trail they will presumably be expected to hire bikes in Bakewell or wherever and enjoy a ride on the A6 instead. Somehow I don’t see the attraction.
A replacement trail is included in the reopening proposals.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,652
Location
Hope Valley
A replacement trail is included in the reopening proposals.
Having looked at the website I can find no detail at all. Is there an alignment and surface specification anywhere? The trump card of the Monsal Trail as it stands is its accessibility for use by almost anyone, on foot, hooves or wheels. Before the tunnels were opened around 15 years ago some of the ‘bypasses’ were a joke. One mis-step and you could fall down a precipice into the Wye Gorge. That was for well-equipped hikers. No chance for cyclists, wheelchair users, equestrians or small children.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,177
The trump card of the Monsal Trail as it stands is its accessibility for use by almost anyone, on foot, hooves or wheels. Before the tunnels were opened around 15 years ago some of the ‘bypasses’ were a joke. One mis-step and you could fall down a precipice into the Wye Gorge. That was for well-equipped hikers. No chance for cyclists, wheelchair users, equestrians or small children.
Or you end up literally walking in the Wye itself (stepping stones). Absolutely agree.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
6,476
Location
Sheffield
Anecdotal, but ... I did a fair deal of walking in the Matlock area last week, and the path along Peak Rail was considerably busier than any of the other rural footpaths. So I am not sure railway tracks are as off-putting as some seem to think!
For those hoping to use this as a solution to the "full" Hope Valley line - a(nother) dose of reality - it will be far cheaper to upgrade the Hope Valley with additional loops and improved signalling than it will be to rebuild Matlock - Buxton.

Once it becomes new line territory then surely a Manchester to Sheffield tunnel is the most useful option. High(ish) speed and direct under the hills. Connected into HS2 East then you have Sheffield to Derby, Sheffield to Nottingham and Sheffield to Leicester upgraded and fast connection to Manchester.

I do not think for a second that you would build a high(ish) speed link between Manchester and Sheffield, but if the aim was better journeys from the East Midlands to Manchester then that tunnel would be more of the solution than anything through Matlock.

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

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

Ultimately we need more lines rather than tweaking the existing ones constantly.
I was going to try and answer many of the points in this latest thread to discus reopening this line but have held fire.

It was about 1980 that I enthusiastically joined Peak Rail. Over the next few decades I donated funds and subscribed for shares in the fond belief that restoring the Bridge Street bridge would get us out of Buxton with relatively easy access from there to Wye Dale then to Chinley and connections for Manchester and Sheffield. Next aim Millers Dale and onwards north and south. A very short lived trial DMU service came in as far as a halt at Chee Dale. The Buxton site was getting established and the way looked set for full reopening. It was far too easy to believe the dream, not least because the line had only been closed since 1968.

Damp squib that has turned out to be as operations were moved to Darley Dale and Rowsley with the site at Buxton sold off for a bottled spring water plant that has itself closed. I naively suggested a first train to arrive in Bakewell at 20.10 on the 20th October 2010! Although I'm still a member the rose coloured spectacles went a long time ago. In the meantime I've walked as close as possible to the line from from Buxton to Derby. Only yesterday I was on the train from Rowsley to Matlock Riverside and can confirm the path alongside the single track was being used by cyclists. I'd observe that being alongside a slow moving heritage steam train seems to be fun, an experience to stop for photos or ride alongside. Not quite the same alongside a freight loco and maybe 25 heavy freight wagons. Residents in housing built alongside the railway since 1968 at Darley Dale and elsewhere would be likely to resist reopening as well as Monsal Trail users. A fairly quiet heritage line is a very different proposition to a full working freight line. A full public inquiry would be inevitable.

Yes, it would probably be far more cost effective to upgrade signalling from Earles into Manchester, add a westbound loop at Earles, make Dore station lines bi-directional, and add more looping options around Chinley.

Using Dore South curve is being mentioned. You can't have your cake for passenger trains and eat it for freights. They may run straight round but often will rest on the curve for gaps in traffic on both mainlines. It needs quite a long gap in MML traffic in both directions before a loaded aggregate train can lumber round the tight bend and up the hill into Bradway Tunnel. You couldn't run a reliable regular passenger service in both directions on the same tracks.

I use the Hope Valley trains frequently. I live beside the line. It's incredibly frustrating that after spending so much (almost certainly a lot more than the £145m that may be quoted since planning started in the mid 1990s) no new services are running between Sheffield and Manchester. That's mostly not the fault of the Hope Valley, more it's lack of capacity around Manchester that would also apply to any services running in from the Buxton and Derby direction. Work is also needed to add back at least a third track down the Sheaf Valley into Sheffield with major platform reconfiguration.

The tracks from Matlock to Ambergate are currently run with one train in a single line section running across old bridges and through old tunnels maintained for relatively light passenger services. Having walked the Monsal Trail section I should imagine that will be similar - lots of over hanging trees and undermining roots. Rabbit warrens a plenty. Of course a line can be rebuilt to carry both passenger and freight traffic, at a price and over years.

Which brings me to who would use it coming from where to exactly where? As has already been stated the most used bus routes into Bakewell are from Chesterfield and Sheffield rather than from Derby. The Peak Park covers 550 square miles. Buxton, Matlock, Ashbourne and Glossop aren't in it so the greater Park area is possibly nearer 700 square miles. Clearly this rail line won't help those around Glossop or Ashbourne. The Hope Valley line isn't helping Castleton that much now, witness the campervans parking up the old Mam Tor road and plans for red line parking restrictions. In Edale two farmers are using fields for parking within sight of the station. The picture is on one sunny day. All the people in all these cars look like a lot, but spread over an hourly, all day, 7 day a week rail service, come rain, snow as well as shine it wouldn't make a rebuilding business case. They've come with all their belongings from all points of the compass. There are masses more all over the Peak.

20260425_114001.jpg

I'd contend that a lot of careful tweaking can deliver much cheaper and quicker gains than this proposed scheme that wouldn't/couldn't be delivered much before 2050. By which time we may have stopped quarrying so much limestone.

But if we want improvements in capacity without extra routes or even more paths on existing routes there's a relatively easy answer. Longer trains. I noted EMR's 1R50 0942 Nottingham to Manchester Piccadilly was full and standing in all 6 cars out of Dore this morning. Their 1M90 0830 Nottingham to Manchester Piccadilly only started in December and at 4 car is also filling well. Maybe start considering 8 car? Lack of rolling stock. Short platforms. Both quicker and cheaper to resolve than reopening this line.

But with GBR and all TOCs working together TPE and Northern can also plan increased train lengths if finance can be found to order the trains and to staff them. Of course if 185s, 195s, 170s, 15xs and any new units could work together it would be very useful.

Finally, improving the current Hope Valley route for appreciably faster trains was effectively shelved as part of the recently completed improvements. The propensity of the landscape to slip was against it at viable cost. However if there's a spare minimum £10-20bn anywhere a new base tunnel from under Sheffield Midland to an interchange hub below Manchester Piccadilly could get a service between the two city centres in about 20 minutes by 2060 - dream on. Thomas Telford managed to complete the Standedge Huddersfield Narrow Canal tunnel of over 3 miles back in 1811. He'd be amazed at our lack of ambition with all the modern equipment available ;)

Screenshot (461).png
 
Last edited:

DM352

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2019
Messages
290
Location
White north
I remember the Buxton site too with the £50k? bridge fund and then as it got built, efforts went to Darley Dale. Around the time, there was a 15 year plan to complete the whole 20 mile project so would have all been done 2001/2 on a sunny day project path. The mood was very upbeat of it happening as an painless alternative to driving the busy A6.

As others said, Manchester Piccadilly would become more a bottleneck than it already is, and getting to a reopened Machester Central with a rebuilt Matlock Buxton line or enhanced Hope Valley line is now impossible due to the Metrolink.
 

Top