Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • White Peak consultation (extending Monsal Trail)
  • Esme
    Free Member

    Just received an email about this:
    Public consultation is currently taking place on the proposal to extend the Monsal Trail from Bakewell to Matlock. The off-road trail will involve using the existing tunnel behind Haddon Hall and new bridges being built, plus a section of new cycleway running alongside Peak Rail. The funds are available and this is a one-off opportunity to complete a key section of the White Peak Loop, a long circular cycle route through the Peak District.

    Consultation finishes 15 September, if you’re interested.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Was in the local papers a few days ago, think there are a few public meetings as well.

    Would be great if it was done, but weren’t Peak Rail eyeing up the old line to extend from Rowsley to Bakewell?

    cuckoo
    Free Member

    Commented in favour of this.

    I think the funding has already been secured from a bid last year but there is still the (big) problem of getting planning permission through and spending the funding before the deadlines.

    The Health and Safety Laboratory have withdrawn their permission to reopen the High Peak Trail over their land, so it looks like the initial focus is now on the Matlock to Rowsley section.

    Last time Peak Cycle Links tried to get planning permission there was a lot of local opposition, particularly around Rowsley and the permission was refused.

    Can’t see Peak Rail having the funds to get to Bakewell on their own. They have objected to the cycling planning permissions in the past but hopefully they are on board this time.

    Two key pieces of infrastructure that they would need to get to Bakewell could be delivered through this bid, a rail-suitable bridge being reconstructed over the A6 at Rowsley and the tunnel through the Haddon estate being reopened.

    If they are serious about their stated aims their best chance is to work with the council and support the cycling bid IMO.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    I agree in principle but a bit concerned about trains and bikes sharing tunnels!

    Not surprised the H&S lot don’t want the trail on their land given what they get to play with up there. Always fascinating job descriptions on tbe civil service job site.

    benman
    Free Member

    Another nice section of singletrack gone 🙁

    simonbowns
    Free Member

    Having chatted to DCC about this, I was surprised to hear that Peak rail actually sounded quite interested in offering guard’s vans (to carry bikes) and link the ideas together. We’ll see…

    Crell
    Free Member

    Another nice section of singletrack gone

    Which doc is that in?

    I’d voted in favour.
    Re using Peak rail to link sections together; it would work for the tourists, but not really something for the locals using the trail to commute or as a link trail because of the likely infrequent timetable (and Peak rail isn’t cheap).

    cuckoo
    Free Member

    Having chatted to DCC about this, I was surprised to hear that Peak rail actually sounded quite interested in offering guard’s vans (to carry bikes) and link the ideas together. We’ll see…

    Surprised about that as well. The (failed) North Yorkshire bid had the local heritage railway (Pickering to Whitby) putting on extra ‘cyclist welcome’ coaches on their trains. I remember thinking at the time how their positive approach to creating an integrated tourist attraction contrasted with that of Peak Rail.

    woody21
    Free Member

    Peak Rail actually are in an interesting position.
    1. They have the lease of the track bed from Rowsley South to Matlock, in the original agreement with the District Council they had to create a concessionary footpath from Matlock to Rowsly Soutn
    2, They own the bridge over the River Derwent at Rowsley (behind the Peacock Hotel)

    Peak Rail do want to extend to Buxton, realistically to do this would cost in the region of £110m (2004 costs based on the DCC feasibility study), the PDNPA have indicted that there should be no rail termini in the National park, so that in theory rules out just running to Bakewell. I believe that the track bed is protected in case that it is re-opened and integrated into the national network

    Crell
    Free Member

    Both could work together really well – families ride one way and then throw their bikes on the train for the journey back for example. My concern is if the train is the only option on a particular section; so to continue you have no choice.

    It might be easy to pop back on the A6 (assuming there was access) at that point and rejoin further, but that’s not great for family cycling / walking.

    Isn’t it the case that all the old tracks could be reincorporated in to the rail network, so is the section in question any more protected?

    woody21
    Free Member

    There are only two sections where there could be problems, the main one is the bridge over the River Derwent in Matlock, the track is in the centre of the bridge, DCC suggest moving the track to one side or the other, this may not be feasible due to the curvature of the track. The rest of the proposed route it would be possible to run a cycle track adjacent to the railway track

    simon1975
    Full Member

    I did their questionnaire.

    Requested they consider bridleway links from Rowsley to Calton Lees / Chatsworth, and to join Haddon Hall and Intake Lane to the new route. They should also think about car parking wherever the route crosses roads (for park-and-ride as well as leisure riding).

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

The topic ‘White Peak consultation (extending Monsal Trail)’ is closed to new replies.