Is this the end of the Peak Rail dream?

I'm sure that due to the near stasis of the peak rail project for the last twelve years that many people already thought that the hope of reopening the Matlock to Buxton railway was already dead in the water.However,there were still a few people that were still thinking that against all the odds that one day it might just happen.That glimmer of hope appears to have been all but extinguished today by the announcement in local papers that the Peak District National Park Authority intend to reopen the tunnels along the route and upgrade the status of the Monsal Trail to a bridleway that will link Buxton and Bakewell.The project already has £1.25million in funding.Surely there can be no way that a steam railway could possibly share a tunnel with a footpath and cycleway but as the PDNPA own the tunnels I guess they can do with them as they please.
It did seem strange to me whilst browsing a web site recently about the Monsal Trail that the attempt to reopen the railway was reffered to as "long abandoned".It's as if the Peak Park are unaware of the existence of Peak Rail.

 

I was at Peak Rail a couple of weeks ago, on my first visit to the place. I was genuinely impressed by the neatness of it all, particularly given the vast amount of stock on site. All the staff were great - we were a party of non-enthusiasts save me, and were made to feel very welcome.

However, if there is no firm plan from the railway as to how they're going to get back to Buxton, who can blame the council for forming other plans to use the formation?

At least if it's a bridleway, the formation is safeguarded for future use if Peak Rail win the lottery.

 

I thought Bakewell was the aim

Hello,

the impression I got was that Peak Rail had settled for the more realistic option to get back to Bakewell and to Matlock station proper rather than Buxton. But I might be wrong.

Still I believe that Matlock to Bakewell would be an attractive railway in itself, even without going to Buxton.

Kind regards

Christoph

 

Peak Rail rebuild through Millers Dale

Whilst a very good objective, in practice how many decades would pass before Peak Rail would be ready to relay all the way?

Better to carry walkers/cyclists etc by Rail to Bakewell from Derby/Matlock and enable them carry on on the track including tunnels in the meantime.

For any body who wants to see how this should be done properly should look at the converted railtracks in the Effiel area of Germany above the Mosel. All bridges, cuttings, emabankments and are repaired and tunnels tastfully lit - its a great cycle and walk facility

However as this is England no doubt the job will be underfunded and botched.


Brian

 

Well I knew of the Peak pail as its been round for many many years.

I was totally suprised to find its only a short line, after all these years its 3 miles long!!!!!

The potential the trackbed/scenery has is imense when I looked at a website detailing the formation, thought wow, if they could rebuild that!!! (or even a descent section) it would rival the very best. But if all they can manage is 3 miles after x amount of years...

I know I will get shot down big time by Peak Rail people, and there are probably good reasons why its only got three miles down the line, but seems a let down, and the council have probably gave up on the railway going through the formation after x amounts of years of no major progress/push?.

Not meaning to offend, but just saying what I see.

 

How long before somebody wants to put a narrow gauge railway from Bakewell to Millers Dale? The double track formation can easily accomodate both train and cycleway as on the Welsh Highland.

 

You've got a good point, though originally they did start at Buxton so the operation they have now hasn't been going as long as the whole project.

 

How much further would Peak Rail be able to get if they received the £1.25 million plus to be spent on this scheme?

It annoys me the way that cycleways, footpaths and bridleways receive what to us in the heritage railway movement seems to be massive amounts fo funding (often to produce what looks like very little!) yet railway projects do not. Which would attarct more visitors - a fully opened Peak Rail or the opportunity to walk or cycle in that part of the Peak National Park? Walking and cycling could be done undertaken at many locations in the park but the Railway can only relay be reopened where it was.

That said, there are plenty of instances of local authority assistance to heritage lines (the top 4 in terms of passngers numbers have all received help over the years) and perhaps the mistake Peak Rail has made is not having a close enough relationship with the National Park to keep them "on side". Given that some lines have been all but created by local authorities to try and have some of the success of the larger lines (NYMR brings at least £30 million into the local ecomony, West Somerset at least £18 million) and that Peak Rail would appear to have the potential to repeat the success of the larger lines (location in a tourist area), it seems strange that the Peak National Park appear to would want to block the reopening.

Of course, Railtrack wanted to just compulsory purchase the whole lot and reopen the route - I seem also to think the Paek National Park commissioned a report into the reopening which came to the shock conclusion that a rural rail service would need a subsidy, so perhaps they are just anti-rail after all.

Steven

 

I can't see PR getting to buxton any time soon, let the PDNP built their path, open and protect the tunnels.
PR can concentrate on getting to Bakewell in the next 10-20 years. After that PDNP will be thinking of new ways to get people in the park, oil will be further into the fuel of history and the car may be too expensive to run. The population will be 70M plus so then I believe there will be a case to reopen the line.

 

The first obstacle to Peak Rail extending North towards Bakewell would be bridging the A6 at Rowsley, immediately North of the Midland station site. A rail over road bridge that due to widening would be of considerable size and cost.
More to the point though, does this "bridleway" proposal presume that the route as a whole will never be added back to the National Network? Eventual electrification of the MML would possibly make Ambergate -Matlock-Bakewell-Chinley an option?

46118

 

Wasn't there a rumour a while ago that one of the railfreight companies was looking at part of this route to be used as a relief line or similar ?

 

''Railtrack included it in one of their wish lists but I would guess that is as much history as they are now.''

Possibily the same report that put the GWSR as potential through route, reconnecting chelt. to the mainline, Honeybourne almost straight in and Stratford would be the big one as a busy road uses a section of the Stratford link to the racecourse site.... either how, bit of a last resort scenario I feel.

Real shame that Peak Rail hasnt had the success that the GWSR has had.

I think someone above makes a good point about a descent event to stick it on the map, also GWSR from day one had a good handful of ex mainline loco's on site which kept it on the map with enthuisasts, not sure how PR compared in its early days, but I know it was a good diesel place, particullary as host to the CoBo for many years, even though it didnt run, it draws attention..

 

Why couldn't the route be shared? The formation is all double track and Peak Rail will only require single track except for passing loops at stations. If a fence was erected leaving sufficient width for a single track of railway in the future that should leave plenty of width for a a footpath/cycleway/bridleway.

 

I really don't think that just going to Bakewell will ever be an option,as the PDNPA always stipulated that Peak Rail could never have rail head within the boundry of the peak park.Besides which,the most challenging part of the line both in engineering terms and politically would be the stretch from Rowsley to Bakewell.Compared with Haddon estates,the PDNPA are pussy cats.Haddon estates own most of the trackbed on this part of the line and have always resolutely refused to have a railway running through thier grounds.

 

I agree, i woulden't see any path as a major obstacle on future expansion when the formation is double track width, lets be frank the GCR will be the only double track heritage line, the single track with loops arrangment is tried and tested.

Not a very picturesque arrangement granted, but better than nothing.

 

How could you possibly have people walking or cycling throgh a tunnel with a steam loco travelling through it.

 

The latest WHR thread comments that that cost £1m per mile so £1.25m might go....1 mile?

I do still have 13 Peak Rail shares but never got a thank you for the £160 an impecunious student put into the Buxton bridge. I am afraid Peak Rail missed the boat. Once the ELR kicked off it had a bigger population draw and a bigger railway fairly quickly (not that the views compare!). That the Wirksworth branch became a preserved railway does not refelct well on Peak Rail.

Reopening the tunnels is a great idea. Sharing with trains is not problematic. In extremis you could segregate with perspex but a fence should be fine. I am sure many of us have cycled unlit canal tunnels. The WHR shares a formation with a cyclepath quite happily and Garratts are not small.