Hope Valley Railway Users Group

Improving the quality and frequency of our rail service

IMPROVING THE RAIL SERVICE IN THE HOPE VALLEY

by THE HOPE VALLEY RAIL USERS GROUP [HVRUG]

1 2 Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

1.1 Hope Valley Rail Users Group 5 1.2 First improvements in 2011 5 1.3 Long-term improvements to rail infrastructure 5 1.4 Franchise Renewals Opportunities 5 1.5 The Hope Valley Rail Survey 6 1.6 The Survey Findings Justify our Campaign for Continuing Improvement 6 1.7 Conclusion 6

2. THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE HOPE VALLEY RAIL SURVEY 7

2.1 The 7 2.2 60% of respondents would make more use of the service 7 2.3 More frequent, regular and evening trains are needed 8 2.4 Better co-ordination with buses 9 2.5 Main destinations of journeys 9 2.6 Main purposes of journeys 10 2.7 And tourism? 11

PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 12

3.1 80% growth in usage on Hope Valley line 12 3.2 Incremental improvement v. brand new timetable 12 (a) Northern franchise 12 (b) First TransPennine Express franchise 13

FINAL CONCLUSION 14

APPENDICES 15

Cover: The 14.14 – (142 040) collects its passengers from Grindleford on 7 November – the author is boarding the second coach. 142s have recently been replaced by 150s on some trains, whilst the obvious step up here has prompted plans for a Harrington Hump on this platform. Robert Pritchard

3 Acknowledgements

• £2000 grant from High Peak & Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership (CRP) • Support from Mike Rose, CRP Project Offi cer • 11 Parish Councils in the Hope Valley who supported the Survey and helped to distribute it • 1305 Hope Valley residents who completed the Survey • Neill Bennett , Senior Project Offi cer and the County Council Transportati on Data and Analysis Team who analysed the Survey • Andrew Dyson and colleagues from “Platf orm 5” who edited and prepared the layout • The HVRUG Stati sti cs & Business Case Sub-Group Kath Aspinwall Stephen Briscoe David Palmer Mike Pedler

The hills pierced by are covered with snow as 150 276 passes Nether Booth (between and Hope) with the 10.45 Manchester–Sheffield on 8 January 2010. Robert Pritchard

4 1. Executive Summary

1.1 The Hope Valley Rail Users Group The Hope Valley Rail Users Group (HVRUG) exists to press for improvements in the train service through the Hope Valley. It has been doing this for over twenty years and currently has some 100 members.

The Hope Valley rail line connects the two major cities of Sheffield and Manchester and brings passengers to a popular part of the . Despite this, the stopping service is one of the least frequent in the country. It is hourly at best and for a substantial part of the day and evening trains run only every two hours [see Appendix 1]. Even so, the line has seen an 80% increase in passenger numbers in the past seven years, which is twice the national average.

1.2 First Improvements in 2011 HVRUG’s campaigning about the inadequate service for commuters has helped to bring about a first success. An additional train now provides an hourly service during the evening rush hours in both directions. Though it is difficult to find extra pathways on a busy line used by stopping trains, fast trains and freight trains, one member devised an ingenious way of obtaining an extra train in each direction at almost no additional cost. Tremendous support came from all parties involved including the local MPs, but the local quarry and freight operators deserve special mention for adjusting their pathways to permit the new trains. As a result there are now five consecutive hourly trains in both directions during the workday evening rush-hour. The improvement is very clear. [See appendix 2]

1.3 Long-term Improvements to Rail Infrastructure In his budget of 22nd March 2012, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced new infrastructure funding including support for major rail improvements to reduce congestion at Manchester Piccadilly and turn it into a “Northern Hub”. As part of this he promised improvements on the Hope Valley line, which we learn will include the restoration of double tracks at Dore and a passing loop at Grindleford and/or Chinley. This is very welcome, because the absence of these facilities, combined with an antiquated manual signalling system, has been a major obstacle to timetable improvements. No announcement has yet been made on the precise specifications or when this work will commence, but this comes at a good time because of current franchise renewals.

1.4 Franchise Renewals Opportunities Northern Rail operates the Hope Valley line as part of the Northern Franchise which the Department of Transport has just extended until 1st April 2014. This means that the terms for the new franchise contract will shortly be subject to consultation, which will be a significant opportunity for HVRUG to press for further timetable improvements. The First TranPennine Express and the East Midlands Trains franchises both also expire by March 2015, and provide an opportunity for another of HVRUG’s ambitions to obtain a selective number of fast trains stopping at one of the five Hope Valley stations.

5 1.5 The Hope Valley Rail Survey With these opportuniti es in mind, this is a criti cal ti me to assemble evidence of the value of the rail service, its current defi ciencies, the benefi ts that improvements would bring to both residents and tourists, and to the economies of the Hope Valley and the northern Peak District. Some of the best and most recent evidence comes from a survey which HVRUG conducted last year. In the autumn of 2011 with the generous help of a grant from the High Peak & Hope Valley CRP and also with the help of volunteers from the eleven Hope Valley Parish Councils postal survey questi onnaires were distributed to every household in the Hope Valley. Residents were asked whether they used the railway, and especially what would encourage them to use the railway more? 1305 questi onnaires were returned and analysed from a total of 3500 delivered, a remarkable response rate of 37% (over 40% in some Parishes-see Appendix 3). As returns of 10-20% are normal in this kind of survey, this is a great achievement which indicates the importance of the railway line for those living in the Hope Valley.

1.6 The Survey Findings Justi fy our Campaign for Conti nuing Improvement 60% of our respondents would use the rail service more frequently if there were a bett er ti metable, and a bett er ti metable is their top priority. This applies both to commuter travel and leisure-ti me use. Our calculati ons suggest that this would mean almost 30,000 extra return journeys per year by residents alone, before tourists are added. These fi ndings and this survey form the basis of our campaign for bett er services.

1.7 Conclusion This report makes a strong case for a regular hourly service on the Hope Valley line. Given an improved service, the residents of the valley will alone ensure a conti nuati on of the rapid growth of usage seen over the last seven years. Leisure use of the line is as important as commuter use, and the current evening service is a barrier to this, and should be improved as soon as possible. Tourism is a second potenti al source of further growth and an hourly Sunday service would be the single easiest way to capture part of this latent demand. Finally, if the full hourly service must wait for infrastructure improvements, then improvements to the morning rush-hour service that could be funded immediately, would move us in the right directi on.

Emily aged 2 ½ delivering survey questionnaires in Hope

6 2. The Key Findings of the Hope Valley Rail Survey

The results of the survey are reported under 7 headings: • The Hope Valley Line • 60% of Respondents would like to make more use of the service • More frequent and Regular Trains including Evening Services • Improved Co-Ordination with Buses • Destinations • The Purpose of Journeys • And Tourism? What follows is a summary of the main findings of the survey. A full analysis of the Hope Valley Rail Survey 2011/12 can be found on our website www.hopevalleyrail.org.uk.

2.1 The Hope Valley Line The Sheffield to Manchester line enters the Hope Valley from the in the east, having crossed underneath the Ringinglow and Totley Moors and runs westwards along the floor of the valley to the Cowburn Tunnel, which takes the train beneath the southernmost Pennine hills towards Chinley. It stops at five stations in the valley: Grindleford, Hathersage, Bamford, Hope and Edale and is a means of access to some of the most attractive scenery of the Peak National Park. It is a popular choice for recreational activities for both Manchester and Sheffield residents, and has a wider national appeal particularly with the start of the at Edale, and the gritstone rock- climbing crags in the Valley., The Hope Valley has a resident population of approximately 8000, and the railway attracts some additional users from villages and towns to the south, such as Eyam, Calver and even Bakewell. The map at the beginning shows the course of the rail line through the valley.

2.2 60% of respondents would make more use of Trains The key result from the survey is that 60% of respondents said that given a more reliable, Fig 1: hourly rail service, they would use it more. From their replies we estimate this increased demand at 30,000 extra journeys per year (60,000 entries and exits using ORR “footfall” numbers). If this were matched by an equal increase in tourist numbers (which we think is very possible, see section below) this becomes 60,000 extra journeys, or 120,000 footfalls. Whilst this raises questions about capacity, this latent potential for an almost 50% increase in usage should be acknowledged as a very powerful incentive to improve the current timetable.

7 2.3 More frequent, regular and evening trains are needed [see Appendix 4] To the questi on: “What would encourage you to use the trains more?” residents answered with:

(i) “A more frequent service” (ii) “More evening services” (iii) “Easier ti metable to remember” (iv) “Improved co-ordinati on with buses”

These responses are highly signifi cant. 90% of those who said they “would use a bett er service more oft en” put “a more frequent service” as their top priority. There can be litt le doubt of the strong positi ve correlati on between improved frequency and greater usage. The HVRUG has had as its primary objecti ve an hourly service throughout the day, every day. All the evidence from this survey confi rms that objecti ve. Incremental improvements are just stepping stones to this core target.

Evening services are a major problem. Complaints come from all along the line, and improvements are long overdue. Anyone wanti ng an evening out in Manchester or Sheffi eld will be dismayed by the two hour gaps in the ti metable and a last train that curtails the evening before many entertainments have concluded. [See Appendix 5] This leads to a signifi cant under-usage of the rail resource and a far greater car usage than is necessary. Saturday evenings are no bett er with only two trains in each directi on with a two hour gap, and a last train at approximately 22:30. On Sundays there is a three hour gap and the last train from Manchester is just aft er 2200. [See Appendix 6] As there is generally less evening and Sunday usage of the line by operators, it should be easier to fi nd new pathways and make incremental improvements.

8 2.4 Better co-ordination with buses Hathersage, Edale and Bamford, have their station within reasonable reach of the village centre, though even in Edale and Bamford it can be quite a walk for some. For Grindleford, Bradwell and Castleton, not to mention smaller communities, it is a significant distance to the nearest station. We asked three questions about the problem of getting to and from the nearest station:

1. “Which is your nearest station?” 2. “If you use the train how do you normally get to the station?” 3. “When not using the train, how do you usually travel?”

Hope station is nearest for the greatest number, although ironically it is not very easily accessible to anyone, not even some of those who live in Hope, nor does it have eastbound platform access for the disabled. Nonetheless, it is an important focal point in the valley and with better disabled access could become the designated station at which fast trains stop [See Appendix 7]

Walking was the most popular means of getting to the station, despite the distances mentioned above [See Appendix 8].

Finally, when not travelling by train, the large majority travelled by car. [See Appendix 9]

HVRUG’s conclusion is that in conjunction with campaigning for more frequent trains, the semi-rural communities of the Hope Valley need to invest time and thought how to make their stations more accessible. Attention needs to be paid to the needs of non-car using/owning residents (and tourists too!) through better co-ordination with buses and other forms of community transport. More car parking space may also be needed at some of our stations if the 60% who would like to travel more by rail, will easily be able to do so. The valley population is significantly more elderly than the national average, and this will become more pronounced, not less, with its implications for mobility and accessibility.

2.5 Main destinations of journeys

Residents were asked: “ To which destination do you travel?” The top three answers were:

1. Sheffield 2. Manchester 3. Hope Valley

The two terminating cities, unsurprisingly, are predominant as destinations, with Sheffield being more popular probably as the nearest [See Appendix 10]. The results for destinations in the Hope Valley itself and to Manchester Airport are also high. Whilst Sheffield is the most important destination for the Hope Valley, it also has the alternative option of access by car and bus, but for Manchester the train has almost a monopoly.

The local Community Rail Partnership (High Peak & Hope Valley CRP) undertook its own biennial line survey of the Hope Valley In March 2011 and this provides useful supplementary information. In particular, one table looks at the destinations of the 36% of respondents who said they were continuing their journeys beyond Sheffield or Manchester by public transport. Eastwards destinations (via Sheffield) included (in rank order) Sheffield itself, London, Doncaster, Leeds, Meadowhall, Chesterfield, Derby and Nottingham. Westwards destinations (via Manchester) were fewer but, again in rank order, included Manchester itself, Salford, Manchester Airport, and Liverpool.

9 Fig 2: ONWARD DESTINATIONS Sheffield Manchester London Salford Doncaster Man. Airport Leeds Liverpool Meadowhall Others

This data shows there is a demand for easy onward travel beyond Sheffield and Manchester. Onward destinations, including in particular London and Manchester Airport, are of considerable importance to residents, and better connections for ongoing journeys would make it easier for these travellers.

Therefore, in addition to timetable improvements for local stopping trains, HVRUG believes that it is important to campaign for fast trains to stop at one station in the Hope Valley. This would improve access to London, Manchester Airport, to the East Coast line and to the West Coast line, and to neighbouring cities as well as providing a few fast trains for commuters to Sheffield and Manchester. This is important as the First TransPennine Express and East Midlands Trains franchises will be renewed soon.

2.6 Main purposes of journeys The questionnaire asked respondents how frequently they travelled, and the purposes of their journeys. From their answers we have made some calculations about the mix of work commuters, leisure users and visitors/tourists.

These show that the number of journeys by frequent travellers (2-7 times per week) greatly outweighs all other less frequent travellers [See Appendix 11]. We assume it is commuters who make the more frequent journeys, and although the less frequent travellers are greater in absolute numbers, their estimated annualized journeys remain modest by comparison. This accords with first-hand experience of travelling on the line, where the commuter trains are the busiest.

Fig 3: MODEL OF USAGE & FREQUENCY Frequency Number Travelling Estimated Annual journeys Most Frequent Users (Commuters) 232 46,400 Infrequent Users (Leisure) 1451 7,150 See Appendices 11 & 12 for more detailed analysis

On the purpose of each household’s rail journeys [See Appendix 12], it is clear that most residents are travelling for leisure purposes (but less frequently), and that a minority travel (frequently) for work purposes. However, a cross-referencing of those who would use a better service more often, with the purpose for which journeys were made, suggests greater scope for expansion in rail travel from the leisure users than the already frequent travelling commuter. This could be important information as commuter trains are already overcrowded whereas leisure journeys are more likely to be spread throughout the day, on evenings and at weekends. National evidence shows that the greatest expansion in rail traffic has been at non-peak periods (although this may include some commuters wanting to take advantage of off-peak fares).

HVRUG’s top priority remains the campaign for an across-the-board hourly service, though especially at peak times, but this new evidence argues another priority is for the off-peak gaps more likely to be used for leisure and tourism, and perhaps starting with the weakest timetable elements of evenings and Sundays.

10 2.7 And Tourism? Our survey covered only the residents of the Hope Valley and indicates their esti mated annual number of journeys at 70,000. As the latest ORR “footf all” fi gures for the fi ve Hope Valley stati ons indicate 122,000 journeys [Appendix 11]. The additi onal 50,000 are most probably made by tourists and visitors. Tourism brings 36 million visitors annually to Derbyshire (East Midlands Tourism 2009) of which 22 million come to the Peak District Nati onal Park. These visitors make a £1.47 billion contributi on to the Derbyshire economy (£225m. to the Peak Park) and 25,000 jobs in Derbyshire are related to tourism.

Although the Hope Valley line serves some of the most beauti ful parts of the Northern Peak most tourists use their cars (85% come by car, 2% by bus/train [2005]). We believe that this is in part because of possible two hour waits for trains, and poor integrati on with bus services. Appendix 13 shows that more than three ti mes as many train passengers embark and alight at the fi ve Hope Valley stati ons on Saturdays than on Sundays. Yet tourist stati sti cs show at least as many Peak District visitors on Sundays as Saturdays. The strong inference must be that the Saturday usage refl ects the availability of an almost comprehensive hourly dayti me service, whilst usage on Sundays refl ects that of the poorest two hour ti metable of the whole week. [See Appendix 6 for Current Sunday ti metable]. This suggests that if the Sunday ti metable were improved to match that of Saturday there would be a substanti al growth in user numbers. Sunday is also the day with least congesti on on the line, the day when most rolling stock is likely to be available, and thus the easiest on which to add additi onal train pathways.

The questi on of how many tourists could be persuaded to leave their cars and use the train requires more study, and this is likely to be the next research priority for HVRUG.

142 011 passes Totley Tunnel East box on 22 June 2010 as the 07.06 Manchester–Sheffield, very popular with commuters into Sheffield from Dore & Totley. This shot (in sunshine) is only possible around the longest day owing to shadows from the trees and signal box. Robert Pritchard

11 3. Priorities for Improvement

3.1 80% growth in usage on Hope Valley line

The growth of passengers on the Hope Valley line has been twice the national average in recent years [See Appendix 14]. Given the deficiencies in the timetable HVRUG believes that this is evidence of the importance of the line and the service it provides. With an improved timetable, this survey provides good evidence of the potential for further significant growth from both residents and tourists.

Fig 4: HOPEVALLEY'S STATION PATRONAGE 2002-2009

25

20

15 Footfalls x 10,000 Footfalls

10 2002/3 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10

3.2 Incremental improvement v. brand new timetable

The two main opportunities to press our case are with the renewal of (a) the Northern franchise, and (b) the contribution of express services at their franchise renewal.

(a) The Northern franchise

HVRUG believes that this report makes strong case for a regular hourly service specification for the new franchise from 2014.

However, until the infrastructure improvements announced by the Chancellor are fully implemented there may not be the capacity on the line for a regular hourly service. This does not mean that nothing can be done, and incremental improvements should continue. In 2012 HVRUG made a study of the morning rush-hour service with the aim of achieving the same kind of incremental improvements that we had won for the evening rush-hour service. We concluded that there were different ways in which this might be achieved, and do not want to lose sight of this objective amongst discussions about the best means.

12 However, our own ti metable analysis lead us to believe that it would be possible to extend two trains that currently run in the morning from Manchester Piccadilly to New Mills, so that they conti nue to Sheffi eld and return, becoming once again part of an existi ng New Mills to Manchester scheduled service. This would require some fi ne-tuning of pathways with freight trains but the obstacles did not seem too diffi cult. This would result in a dramati c improvement in the ti metable with seven morning consecuti ve hourly trains from Sheffi eld to Manchester and six hourly journeys from Manchester to Sheffi eld [See Appendix 15] A problem remains between 0708 and 0845 [But see First TransPennine proposal below).

Northern Rail has responded that there is no funding to pay for the additi onal units and crews that these extensions would need, and have suggested that this should instead become part of the new franchise contract.

(b) The Contributi on of Express Services

HVRUG believes a future Hope Valley service should comprise a mixture of stopping services supplemented by a selecti ve number of fast trains stopping at one of the fi ve Valley stati ons. It took many years of persuasion to persuade First TransPennine Express (TPE) to stop at Dore, but that has proved so successful that the initi al scheme has been considerably extended. HVRUG are confi dent that the same would hold true if a few fast trains stopped at one Hope Valley stati on in the rush hours. Our initi al priority would be one fast train to Manchester in the morning [we propose the 0709 Sheffi eld TPE arriving Manchester at approximately 0802], and one fast train from Manchester in the evening [we propose the 1720 TPE arriving Sheffi eld approximately 1810]. But there is also a great deal of merit in the 0720 Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffi eld TransPennine stopping in the Hope Valley as it would arrive in Sheffi eld at approximately 0812 and allow access to the fast East Midlands 0827 to London and also access to the East Coast line at Doncaster. Appendix 16 incorporates these proposals. Express franchise renewal is in 2015 but there is great merit in pilot trials beforehand.

Seen from the ridge on 6 November, the and the massif dwarf the Northern Belle luxury train, top-and-tailed by 47790 and 47832. Valerie Hirst

13 4. Final Conclusion

This report makes a strong case for a regular hourly service on the Hope Valley line. Given an improved service, the residents of the valley will alone ensure a conti nuati on of the rapid growth of usage seen over the last seven years. Leisure use of the line is as important as commuter use, and the current evening service is a barrier to this, and should be improved as soon as possible. Tourism is a second potenti al source of further growth and an hourly Sunday service would be the single easiest way to capture part of this latent demand. Finally, if the full hourly service must wait for infrastructure improvements, then improvements to the morning rush-hour service that could be funded more quickly, would move us in the right directi on.

Celebrations when the extra evening train first began in December 2011

14 5. Appendices

Appendix 1 Weekday timetable in 2008 with thirteen 2 hour gaps Appendix 2 December 2011 timetable with eleven two hour gaps Appendix 3 Questionnaire responses by Hope Valley Parishes Appendix 4 What would encourage more train usage? Appendix 5 Weekday evening timetable-five gaps needing to be filled Appendix 6 Sunday timetable-seventeen gaps Appendix 7 Nearest station for Hope Valley residents Appendix 8 Means of transport to Hope Valley stations Appendix 9 HV Residents’ usual means of non-rail travel Appendix 10 Rail destinations for residents of the Hope Valley Appendix 11 Different journey frequencies & estimated annualized journeys Appendix 12 Purpose of journeys Appendix 13 CRP biennial survey of Hope Valley line March 2011: numbers embarking & alighting Appendix 14 ORR growth in “footfall” at Hope Valley stations over 5 and 7 years Appendix 15 Weekday timetable with proposed Northern morning improvements: four extra trains Appendix 16 Weekday timetable with proposed Northern & TPE morning improvements: seven extra trains

APPENDIX 1: WEEKDAY TIMETABLE IN APPENDIX 2: WEEKDAY TIMETABLE 2012 2008 WITH THIRTEEN 2 HOUR GAPS WITH ELEVEN 2 HOUR GAPS

WEEKDAY TIMETABLE 2008 WEEKDAY TIMETABLE 2011/12 From Sheffield From Manchester From Sheffield From Manchester 0620 0550 0620 0550 0712 0706 0712 0706 X X X X 0914 0845 0914 0845 1014 X 1014 X X 1045 X 1045 1214 X 1214 X X 1245 X 1245 1414 X 1414 X X 1445 X 1445 1614 1545 1614 1545 1714 X 1714 1645 X 1718 1814 1748 1914 1845 1914 1845 2035 X 2035 X X 2045 X 2045 2247 X 2247 X 2248 2248 X=Two hour gaps needing to be filled X=Two hour gaps needing to be filled

15 APPENDIX.3: QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES BY PARISH

PARISH PERCENT (%) HOUSEHOLD TOTAL POPn RESPONSE TOTAL POPn RESPONSE HOUSEHOLDS Hathersage & 44 356 807 831 1889 Outseats Bradwell 35 224 648 519 1484 Hope with Aston 40 188 473 390 976 Grindleford 40 155 389 348 870 Bamford with 23 151 651 312 1357 Thornhill Castleton 36 120 332 256 711 Edale 43 61 143 125 290 Froggatt 42 36 86 72 172 Brough with 21 13 61 30 145 Shatton Abney et Al 3 1 35 3 100* TOTAL 36%* 1305 3625 2883 7994 *note: questionnaires reached approx. 3500 households=37% response

APPENDIX 4: WHAT WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE TRAIN USAGE?

Reason No. More Frequent Service 804 More Evening services 542 Timetable Easy to Remember 421 Improved Co-ordination with Buses 343 Better information When Trains Late 341 Improved Reliability 324 More Weekend Services 311 9 Other Reasons Below 300

APPENDIX 5: WEEKDAY EVENING TIMETABLE-FIVE GAPS NEEDING TO BE FILLED

WEEKDAY EVENING TIMETABLE From Sheffield From Manchester 1814 1845 1914 X 2035 2045 X X 2224 2228 X X X=GAPS NEEDING TO BE FILLED

16 APPENDIX 6: SUNDAY TIMETABLE-SEVENTEEN GAPS

SUNDAY TIMETABLE From Sheffield From Manchester

X 0745 X 0920 0922 X X 1114 1145 X X 1313 1345 X 1445* 1514 1545 1615* X 1714 1745 X X 1914 1945 X X 2217# 2211 X X X=Two hour gaps needing to be filled *Summertime only #Change at Stockport

APPENDIX 7: NEAREST STATION FOR HV RESIDENTS

Nearest Station Number Percentage Hope 531 40.6% Hathersage 356 27.2% Grindleford 192 14.7% Bamford 165 12.6% Edale 63 4.8% Total 1307 100%

APPENDIX 8: MEANS OF TRANSPORT TO HOPE VALLEY STATIONS

Means Walk Car Bus Bicycle Number 1341 1033 57 41

APPENDIX 9: USUAL MEANS OF NON-RAIL TRAVEL?

Means Car Bus Number 1973 379

17 APPENDIX 10: RAIL DESTINATIONS OF RESIDENTS OF THE HOPE VALLEY

Sheffield Manchester Hope Valley Manchester Chesterfield and Stockport Airport beyond 2293 1618 886 712 340 126

APPENDIX 11: DIFFERENT JOURNEY FREQUENCIES AND ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED JOURNEYS

Frequency 2-7 Times per Weekly Monthly A Few Times Never Total week per Year Number 232 251 434 1451 503 2850 % 8.1% 8.8% 15.2% 50.9% 17.6% 100% Multiplier* x200* x48* x12* x5* E.A.J.s 46,400 12048 5208 7150 70,806 % 65.5% 17% 7.4% 10.1% 100% *Note on Estimated Annualized Journeys [EAJs] To convert the questionnaire responses on frequency into a useful comparative dataset an annual multiplier has been chosen for each frequency. For example, assuming the “2-7 Times per week” represents commuters we have chosen 200 as a conservative number of commuter journeys per year. Ditto for other frequencies. This gives us a total of 70,806 residents’ annual journeys based on the 36-37% who responded to the questionnaire. If we further assume these journeys are return ones, then this is an annual residents’ “footfall” [total of those embarking and alighting from the trains] of 141,612 in the Hope Valley. The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) estimates the annual “footfall” for the 5 Hope Valley stations for 2010/11 to be 244,052. Knowing the component estimated to be attributable to residents, we can suggest that the majority of the remainder of 102,440 (42%) is attributable to visitors and tourists. In the absence of any other published figures this is a helpful extrapolation but needs to be treated with caution, and further research is needed.

APPENDIX 12: PURPOSE OF JOURNEYS

Leisure Work Education Other Total 2167 671 208 209 3255 66.6% 20.6% 6.4% 6.4% 100%

APPENDIX 13: CRP BIENNIAL SURVEY OF HOPE VALLEY LINE MARCH 2011. NUMBERS ENTERING AND EXITING

STATION TUESDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY TOTAL OFF ON OFF ON OFF ON OFF ON Grindleford 61 54 94 124 39 43 194 221 Hathersage 71 64 110 111 28 44 209 219 Bamford 31 42 108 78 16 11 155 131 Hope 88 37 142 141 62 66 292 244 Edale 97 51 226 224 48 79 371 354 TOTAL 348 248 680 678 193 243

18 APPENDIX 14: ORR GROWTH IN “FOOTFALL” AT HOPE VALLEY STATIONS OVER 5 & 7 YEARS

STATION 2002/3 2004/5 2009/10 5 YEAR 7 YEAR GROWTH GROWTH Grindleford 24,408 30,900 53,768 74% 120.3% Hathersage 26,074 35,850 48,778 36.1% 87.1% Bamford 15,510 16,618 24,442 47.1% 57.6% Hope 26,551 33,823 48,210 42.5% 81.6% Edale 40,422 44,109 63,754 44.5% 57.7% Total 132,965 161,300 238,952 48.1% 79.7%

APPENDIX 15: WEEKDAY TIMETABLE APPENDIX 16: WEEKDAY TIMETABLE WITH WITH PROPOSED NORTHERN MORNING PROPOSED NORTHERN & TPE MORNING IMPROVEMENTS: FOUR EXTRA TRAINS IMPROVEMENTS: SEVEN EXTRA TRAINS

WEEKDAY TIMETABLE WITH NORTHERN WEEKDAY TIMETABLE WITH NORTHERN & MORNING IMPROVEMENTS TPE MORNING IMPROVEMENTS From Sheffield From Manchester From Sheffield From Manchester 0620 0550 0620 0550 0712 0630 0709 TPE 0814 0708 0712 0630 0914 0845 0814 0708 1014 0945 0720 TPE 1114 1045 0914 0845 1214 X 1014 0945 X 1245 1114 1045 1414 X 1214 X X 1445 X 1245 1614 1545 1414 X 1714 1645 X 1445 1814 1748 1614 1545 1914 1845 1714 1645 2035 X 1720 TPE X 2045 1814 1748 2247 X 1914 1845 2248 2035 X X=Two hour gaps needing to be filled X 2045 Blue= two additional Northern trains 2247 X 2248 X=Two hour gaps needing to be filled Blue= two additional Northern trains Green=three additional TPE trains

19