Peak Rail Annual Report and Action Group

Ill shall find it for a read. I would personally think that if the quarries and revelant authorities network rail etc and local authority owners of the trackbed route see the economics stack up nicely. Peak rail would probably be second fiddle to 10+aggregate trains a day plus hourly/bi hourly passanger services, a case of move over. Peaks figures do look like a on the cheap compared to what industry come up with. I know bit out of date and no doubt price gone up.

 

I would tend to view the costs of the Borders Railway as a far more useful prediction of what the likely cost range might be. Thesedays on large capital infrastructure projects a few tens of millions won't get you very far. It's not just the material cost there are so many items that have an equal pull on the budget.

 

Having a basic understanding of economics of housing development. You see how much you add on for environmental surveys assessments and architects. Engineering surveys, consultations , legal and planning fees etc etc. Before you even start putting your first bit of track down. As ilvaporista says the borders railway is actually a good comparison on rebuilding a route. Both must have similar terrain of valleys and gradients

 

I didn't realise there was this thread until after I had posted a comment on the Peak Rail General Discussion thread after seeing the announcement from PR about putting out a tender for a feasibility study. For anyone interested, its here:
https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/peak-rail-general-discussion.21492/page-103

This all seems surreal. On the one hand you have an organisation ploughing head down into court battles wasting volunteers hard earnt money, resulting in a highly likely EGM. Then they go and make an announcement that they are going to spent a shed load of money (or someone's money) on a feasibility study. The next few months are going to get very interesting I think.

I just hope the cloud breaks that is hanging over us at the moment and we can start moving forward. If things carry on as they are, there will be no Peak Rail. I don't want that. Not after spending over 20 years of my life volunteering there. But hey...who knows what will happen.

 

From sitting on the fence looking in as an outsider its just strange way of doing business. Issuing tenders for studies yet pouring money down the drain with hopeless legal battle which have cost alot of money. Bet the final bill with fees over 2 i believe grintsy rail cases they lost, will be scary reading for the finances for members and volunteers
PEak rail aint got the turnover or finances of nymr or the severn valley to call on

 

Quarrying cheese according to Weekend Rails.

 

‘Partnership’ can be a euphemism for ‘somebody else is paying’. Which may be fine depending on what they want in return for their money.

 

Proposals to revive a disused rail line through the Peak District have moved a step forward, but not the passenger service some have called for.

Read more at: https://www.matlockmercury.co.uk/ne...consider-peak-district-railway-line-1-9086593

 

Be nice as the big quarry companies want to possibly look at shorter route to the south for their products. But devil be in detail. Solid freight route get it going and at least relaid. But will they want peak rail running aswell will big demands for aggregate in very near future. Respect the acknowlegdement that its beyond peak rail as a voluntary organisation to be able to deliver, so see if industry can do it

 

I guess the arrangement would be that in exchange for the freight company getting running rights from Matlock to Rowsley, Peak Rail would get running rights on the whole line for (say) 8 hours Saturday/Sunday?
Anyhow I think it's probably pie in the sky.

 

I still don't get the concept of this, quarry stone is not time sensitive so shortening the time or the distance has little impact on the cost. If the issue is capacity of the network on the current route the min. £100+ million needed to relay the MR main line could be better spent on upgrading and adding in additional storage so that the material flow can be despatched at times when capacity is available.
(That's not including the upgrade work on the Matlock-Ambergate route for heavy stone trains)

 

Fair points. I guess its got to keep the hope alive that it will all get relaid and peak rail can enjoy it at someone elses cost. Peak rail needs to reorganise and evalaute what it wants to achieve. And what is achievable with resources it has

 

It's more than that: it's a distraction. They know they're in trouble and so they've cooked up some nonsensical 'feasibility study' and shouted LOOK OVER THERE!.

Personally if my back was against the wall I wouldn't ape the tactics of that Trawsfynydd idiot, but then I dare say that it's my lack of business sense which makes me unsuited to a leadership position at Peak Rail.

 

On the contrary. A claimed utter lack of business sense suggests that Rosedale is an entirely suitable candidate for a junior leadership position within Peak Rail.

If he subsequently seeks promotion? He should be aware that many of the senior leadership positions at Peak Rail are only open to members of a certain family and their hangers on.

Boris Johnson, whilst Mayor of London, once said.
“When a debate is going badly you put a dead cat on the table. Then the media all goes ‘What is that dead cat doing on the table?’ In other words, they are not talking about the issue you are doing badly on.”

In other words; 'Yet another attempt by the Peak Rail PLC management to draw attention away from the current disastrous state of Peak Rail's finances'.

 

Must not have alot left in the kitty. From previous comments. Its sounds like they got bailed out by mystery benefactor. Wonder what they got in return.

 

After inflation, it's about £52m for Peak Rail's figures.

Council's own proposal now pins it between £120-180m ish.

 

That’s a reasonable figure IMO. The 180 that is.

The Borders railway is a somewhat fair comparison, but there were quite a few new bridges put in on that line, plus 7 new stations, from what I’ve seen, the peak line is in fairly good condition and wouldn’t need the same number of stations if I judge correctly. That brings the price down a fair bit.

 

Most of the stations are still extant as are the buildings which're used to support walkers and the biking along the Monsal trail and seem to be in generally good order, so a lot of that cost gets nixed almost immediately, asking for a room to do bookings from is hardly the most expensive outlay in the world.

In the case of a aggregate/Network Rail reopening, you wouldn't even bother with that and sell tickets from a machine dumped under a shelter, or again, inside said buildings.

Heck, for the most part I'd just sell on the train if it was a heritage operation and just not bother.

The other big difference which might come to mind is that your average heritage train is only going to be in the 250-300 tonnes bracket, while aggregate trains are on average 1300 or more with JGA or HOA hoppers. Reinforcement or additional maintenance to the bridges and Permenant Way will become a factor. 10 hefty aggregate trains a day roaring down Monsal Dale at 50 miles an hour versus a lighter train leisurely strolling along with half a dozen Mk1's is a massive difference.

The Derbyshire County Council report seems to presume that the current rate of services to Matlock would simply be extended to Buxton, something which has a woeful business case considering how lightly populated that region of Derbyshire becomes as soon as you leave Bakewell. Hence why it would lose money.

A Heritage Operation would also likely put in a request stop for Haddon Hall, while a Network Rail proposal might not.

Heritage Bus operations from Rowsley North, or Bakewell to Chatsworth would also likely be a good business strategy, as it lets you then advertise the railway as a means of getting to one of the biggest tourist traps in the entire county.

An attempted fusion of the Aggregates and Heritage line plan likely wouldn't work. You'd have a rail line running through absolutely prime real estate in terms of drawing in the tourists to get bums on your seats, and the present hinted plan (quarry in the week, steam at the weekends) would kibosh any kind of sensible timetable that could take enormous advantage of any school holidays.

 

So far no-one has mentioned the W8 freight loading gauge which is rather bigger than the 19th Century Midland Rly loading gauge to which the tunnels were built. If a single track line is built then you may be able to get around that by moving the track towards the centre of the tunnel arch. That would put paid to any lingering idea of sharing the tunnel with a footpath. Alternatively you could dig out the tunnel floor and underpin the walls to increase the available height; however I am told that Monsal Head tunnel needs to be lowered by 1.5 metres; that leads out on to Monsal Head viaduct and lowering that would be a bit of a challenge. I suspect there are similar problems of tunnel plus underbridge combinations at Chee Tor No. 1 and 2 and Holt Lane (Matlock) Tunnels.

Another problem which does not get mentioned much is the level crossing issue: the general rule is not to have any on a new project. There has been plenty of fuss and years of argument on the Rother Valley scheme. One idea put up in the past - I forget who by - was that Church Lane should be closed off to avoid the crossing there, the County council were said to be cautiously in favour as it is used as a rat run by traffic evading jams on the A6. But, hang on a minute - do you stop all pedestrian access to Churchtown - should there be a footbridge for safety reasons, should it have whopping great wheelchair access ramps right next to the houses.

What alignment will a 50mph or any other main line railway railway take through Rowsley south site - will it follow the original main line and cut through and cut off the car park - how is access to be made into the Rowsley sidings complex? Will a level crossing be permitted or is an overbridge going to be needed? What is the cost of signalling a main line connection for Peak Rail?

After the railway closed the level of the A6 was raised to get round flood risk. Getting the railway to climb up over the new road level and then back down again to the present Derwent viaduct just up the line is an interesting proposition.

If the scheme is sufficiently ruthless with the local environment and can raise enough money then I am sure it can be done, but there will be the dickens of a public enquiry before anything happens.

 

In assessing the costs, and comparing to the Borders Line, I note that the Borders Line has a low Route Availability, with many restrictions for loco hauled traffic. The Matlock branch had - I believe now partly addressed - a reputation for requiring very low axle weights on trains. Aggregates traffic is the opposite extreme, which suggests that significant remediation work will be required on the infrastructure to bear loads that will be (due to the combination of speed & weight) more demanding than any previously carried on the line.