Peak Rail Annual Report and Action Group

Like John & Al, I'm no bridge engineer but, looking at the way they are attached to the columns by clamp rings, they look to be later additions and not part of the original structure. I wonder why the attachments on the right hand column (as viewed) have failed. Corrosion, perhaps?

 

In my past experience of floods in Northumberland, with bridges over water the important bits are hidden in the water. It costs money to bring in qualified diving surveyors to check them out and then can cost large money to do any repairs required. Then you can turn to the above water level. Bracing could have been brought down by debris bashing it on the way through, a tree at full belt can cause a lot of damage to a weakened structure.

 

Because the bridge is a slew bridge, the bracing isn't at a right-angle to the flow, & anything being carried downstream is going to hit into the bracing. The flow will also be greater in the middle, & that column is further into the river than the one to it's left.
So that end of the bracing is more likely to get hit, & at a greater force.

The attachments also look like they are simply clamped around the columns & not actually attached to them.

 

If you were prudent, and knowing of the damage the flood just caused, you would examine the foundations of the piers now.

 

Working over rivers can be very expensive as all work done has to be approved by the rivers authority. Things such as removing possibly lead- based paint which can pollute the river are very expensive. Definitely needs a professional survey. The bracing isn't for decorative purposes.

Bob.

 

Is this the bridge whose piers rise from concrete columns cased in old loco tyres? Last time I was up that way (when PR were at Buxton!) on of the then PR people told me it was worth a look.
Pat

 

Hope that is done before the next floods come down!

 

Somewhat off-topic, but this was the thread that alerted me to Mr Briddon's site, and I'm not sure there is a thread here dedicated to his site...

Thought I'd point out a notable recent post there: Tenth Anniversary Edition. Congratulations!

Noel

 

The Waterman Debenture is an interesting development. It presumably ranks behind the co-op.

I could almost see it as a good thing if PW took control. However, given the number of £1 shares he would only ever be a minority with de facto control. Still, control is probably there to be taken for £50k given the dispersed sharehholdings.

PW is still neither a Director nor person with significant control......at least officially.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

He was (is?) president of the GWSR. His approach was, shall we say, very much hands-off! So I wouldn't hold out much hope of him getting involved one way or another.

 

PW has been a very hands off President at Peak Rail too although curiously his presence and financial contribution(s) have probably deflected attention away from the Board’s antics. His role has never actually been explained but having a big name involved undoubtedly appeals to some shareholders, I think some were naively thinking he was the key to revitalising PR. PR isn’t a natural home for him or his locos but the majority of passengers are not going to be too bothered about what steam loco is pulling their train!

 

According to the website, he still is.

 

There are some interesting comments at the end of this weeks Weekend Rails regarding goings on at PR
https://www.weekendrails.co.uk/blog/of-pounds-shillings-and-pence.html

 

I am surprised by the statement that "the Trust is a small charity, not eligible for gift aid". I am a trustee of a charity which regularly claims gift aid and has income of a similar order to that quoted for Peak Rail (and expenditure roughly equal to income).

 

Is the PRAG defunct?

 

PRAG is by no means defunct: we have been biding our time knowing that sooner or later the truth would come out. However, having been the target of considerable unfounded and defammatory criticism from the Peak Rail Board, Pete Briddon has taken a back seat but we have learned much from that confrontation. PRAG was already preparing a fresh statement to go out supporters, but put it on hold and the events of the last few days proved right to do so. It is likely we will revise that statement in the near future.

At a Peak Rail AGM a year or two ago Director Paul Tomlinson spoke at considerable length explaining all their failed attempts to get the railway extended and if recalled correctly described the "Quarry Consortium" as the 'last roll of the dice'. Yet there is no mention of the Quarry Consortium in the latest PR Directors reports: on the contrary, it only describes 'Peak Rail's plans' to complete the line and be a 'diversionary route' for quarry traffic. Astute readers will deduce that no quarry company is going to contribute millions of pounds for what will just be an emergency back door. PRAG's view is that the Quarry Consortium is dead, perhaps another victim of Covid, and the 'last roll of the dice' has been and gone, but the Board will no doubt conveniently forget what it said.

Accompanying the accounts was an appeal letter: our slogan was "Let's get Peak Rail back on track" - we see the PR appeal is headed "Getting Peak Rail back on Track" - which about sums up the limit of Board's ability to produce anything new.

As regards MellishR's remark in the preceeding post, I believe he is refering to the observations made on Pete Briddon's blog: those were drawn directly from the Charities Commission website and relate to Pete Waterman's Trust. Peak Rail - the operating company - is a public limited company and as such is 'profit making'. The supporters group - the Peak Railway Association Ltd - is a company limited by guarantee and originally drawn up with the intention to become a charity at a later date, but this has never happened. Therefore neither of these Peak Rail bodies can claim Gift Aid: why the Waterman Trust cannot I am not qualified to say.

RF

 

If PR was to be reformed, what would the PRAG see as the future of the line? Modest extension - to where? Full blown reinstatement to Buxton? What would the priorities be of a reformed railway?
If you feel that you'd rather not answer at this stage that's no problem, just curious.

Keith

 

If it is one thing the present Peak Rail Board is guilty of, it is of gazing in the direction of some nirvana while failing to get the railway it has got on a sound financial footing; where both public and volunteers return in growing numbers. Until that is achieved, pronouncements about going north are as good as "Let them eat cake".

There was a plan, entitled "Vision", which was released on Pete Briddon's blog some time ago, but even that would require re-thinking in the light of the situation the railway is in now.

(I haven't cleared this with other members of PRAG but I am sure they would agree.)

RF