Is this the end of the Peak Rail dream?

i think its the smoke in the tunnel that might cause cincern....

 

If as one poster mentions, the Haddon Estates are opposed to reinstatement of the line through the grounds of Haddon Hall, and they own the trackbed, then I guess that is that as far as going North towards Bakewell is concerned. At least they are being consistent, given that the Duke of Rutland first insisted on a cut and cover tunnel in 1860 so that the line could not be seen from the Hall.

Peak Rail sell themselves as a "park and ride" option for Matlock, but I am not sure that is a reality now, given that the Sainsburys/Cawdor development did create more car parking opposite Sainsburys, adjacent to the bus/rail interchange.

I wonder if Peak Rail will just have to go back to basics, and promote themselves simply as a Heritage Railway with steam-hauled rides for the youngsters who have never experienced same. This takes some imaginative marketing to promote the basic rail trip around special events through the year.

They need to be able to guarantee reliable steam haulage at all times. They are not really an "8F" line. They need a couple of "Austerity" -type tanks to call upon. Their exisiting one must be getting near to end of ticket?

Ongoing steam motive power must surely be a higher priority than ambitious extension plans.

46118

 

Our operational austerity is now a good 6 years into it's ticket,and has been used virtually every week since it returned to action.Although it's maintained to a very high standard,it is getting tired now,and one wonders how long the railway can keep relying on it's availability.
As far as I'm aware,the railway does run 'in the black',and is very careful of its finances,but at the end of the day,without taking a finacial risk,they will cease to progress any further.Someone else suggested hiring in a locomotive to run with the eight-freight,something I would really like to see myself,but unless there is a definiate profit to be made,I can see it as being unlikely to happen soon.
What we do need is a wider audience,and wider marketing in the area.If you stray far outside of the local area then the railway is more or less unheard of,whereas other visitor attractions are well advertised.
I sincerely hope we can at least make it to Bakewell in my lifetime!

 

Wirksworth and Peak Rail

Might the best option for Peak Rail for it to stop flogging a dead horse and combine with the Ecclesbourne Valley Line?

Regards

 

Have PDNP sold any of the line? because that is the only way Haddon Estates have become an "owner"

Blackwell Mill to Rowsley was sold to PDNP tunnels excepted

I am fairly sure the tunnels were part of the BRBR - Sustrans transfer so that's where the cycleway bridlepath comes in.

I think you will also find that the routes put in by Sustrans are permissive and as of Right and included in the definitive maps.

 

Yes, waste years of work, money and enthusiasm.

PR can still be successful without an extension, just getting into Matlock, working on getting Darley Dale fixed up (footbridge and P2 buildings), possibly double tracking.
I would love to see the 8f (in black) with a freight train pass a royal scot passenger train at Darley Dale.
Maybe in the far distant future an extension towards Cromford and Ambergate by relaying the other track would be the best way forward.

 

I still think Peak rail could make Bakewell, why not just follow the A6 the other side of Hadden hall, assuming they do not own the land the other side as well that is, true you would have build your own track bed, but it has always struck me as a more suitable route than the original and with the Outlet and other thing in its way would on the face of it seem more practical.

 

And how many millions would that cost, even assuming the landowners would sell? Not forgetting of course the small matter of Rowsley Village itself which happens to be in the way if the railway was to make a smart left off the original formation before the A6 bridge site.
I agree with the poster above, sort out Darley Dale, improve the existing Rowsley end of the line, and save up to bring platform 2 at Matlock up to a useable state. That is plenty to occupy them for at least ten years and more.

 

I am afraid that Haddon Estates are the major land owner between Rowsley and Bakewell, it would absolutely unfeasible that the alignment could be altered. Whilst the cycle route does all seem to be doom and gloom - not sure how the PDNPA expect cyclists to arrive by rail when the nearest passenger rail heads are at Chinley (on the Hope Valley Line) and at Matlock on the line from Derby, particularly as you can only get a couple of cycles on a train anyway so the PDNPA will be beholden to the automobile. The PDNPA have published a consultation document on their core strategy - references to transport (including the Matlock - Buxton route) are from page 184 onwards - below is the link

http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/core-strategy-preferred-approach.pdf

Which states that:

T5: Managing the demand for rail, and using former railway routes for non-motorised users
The routes of the former Woodhead and Matlock to Buxton railways will be safeguarded for future rail use (including heavy rail, light rail and guided bus), providing that such a use yields a net environmental benefit to the National Park. However, the Authority does not support any heavy rail, light rail or guided bus development scheme in principle. The safeguarding of a route for such use should not be interpreted in this way. Any future scheme would be assessed on its merits.

The document also states that they wish to encourage more environmentally friendly ways of accessing the park

If anyone would like to comment on the strategy or generally voice their opinions of the scheme then i would suggest contact the PDNPA via

http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/index/contactus.htm

 

I forgot to add that various Network Rail vehicles had been seen parked in Darley Dale it is understood that they were undertaking a survey of the structures on the line

 

Yes,spotted a few about lately...

 

I think personally the line 'needs' to extend! At 3 miles is just not appealing, certainlly not to me anyway.

Looking at it, the only way it sounds like this will happen is if Network rail re-open the line..

 

Maybe you should approach the Haddon Hall estate then? Say "Well until you let Peak Rail extend over land you own, then I won't be coming to spend a few quid in the local area" I'd love to hear their response... ;-)

If a landowner says "No" - which they have every right to do - then "No" is the answer.

Just because there are a few people like us, who are into trains and don't like their stance, it doesn't make their position wrong.

No extension likely, so Peak Rail's best bet is to make the best of what they have. And our best bet is to accept it.

 

I could be wrong on this but I think the granting of a Transport and Works Order can give the Railway Undertaking compulsory purchase rights to make any land acquistions required.

That probably would mean a massive legal bill for Peak Rail to get its TWO!

 

i dont see what the fuss is all about!, the monsal trail has always been a mess for those wishing to use it fully, what nobody bothers to tell you on the publicity side for it is that once you go beyond monsal head viaduct the idea of cycling the route to buxton in the most scenic bit becomes an absolute nightmare, several closed tunnels,you have to go up n down hillsides if you do want to continue along it and then you get to just outside buxton and your forced to use the dangerous cramped roads of the valley to get there...ive done it and its not a shade on other trails in the area.

before anyone shouts, im also a volunteer at the line, am i worried about all of this...not really, theres only two ways to get the line up that far into the dales and thats either a massive amount of money that only one heritage line (WHR) has managed to get in the last thirty years in this country to fulfil their dream or if wed started all those years ago in the 70s when the track was still in at darley instead of going for the steam centre at buxton...fact is life is life and we didnt,we have what we have which is a perfectly fine little line at around three miles long,which is sat in a tourist area,with a great site at rowsley that atracts other users,events etc,with good groups of volunteers that run many different events yearly and several projects to keep us happy for the conceivable future, as one of the previous posters put it, get darley finished,the shed and sort out the loco fleet,yep thats about right..makes sense,well put!

oddly enough most of the threads on these last three pages relating to this seem to be putting the railway down,or telling us to quit! quite unreasonably for whatever reason i dont care, I dont see one posters logic in that we got three miles and no further so we should give up!?, go tell the same thing to a lot of the other heritage lines in the country of about same length,get real!

ive been involved in even smaller heritage schemes before now and i dont take much notice of the rumour mongers or doom n gloom experts, i do however take notice of those volunteers whove stuck at something for thirty years even if theyve got very little further on than the year previous, why?....because theyve managed to keep it going for thirty years without loosing interest or giving up, regardless of what they show for it, they enjoy themselves, and before anyone says "thats not enough for the punters!" were still here and generating income quite well, how many bigger lines have gone through turmoil with their volunteers because this year they didnt do this or that and upset the vols!because the grand plan wasnt followed this year!

nope, let the PDP build their cycleway,great,something to bring in more people into the area and improve the trail,fantastic news for us locals, and il still be here supporting my local line for years to come listening to some rather odd placed comments....mine as well

will we get there,to bakewell or beyond,who knows, i didnt think the WHR would ever do it, and im glad they proved me wrong,peak rails problems are nothing compared to the WHR at getting to Porthmadog, look at the ambitious proposals of the Churnet Valley Railway,if the future is in local councils getting behind there heritage lines and backing them ,then bakewell is a possibility,especially for the tourist honeypot,even with all the planning problems and costs,nothings impossible!.


before i go, there was some surveying done by both NR and DBS on the possibility of reopening the peak line as a w10 extra line in association with the midland mainline plans for the future, i emailed the NR publiciity officer,whose reply was that they considered it but the cost was not effective, his reply can be found on the Railway Eye forum about a month ago...

 

Kestreleyes, re your last sentence, what chance this route being pulled into the proposed west Coast High speed 2 route as a cheaper way to get to Manchester via some tough terrain ?

 

Even reopened as a national through route, the Matlock to Buxton line would probably be single track only, so there is no reason why the route should not be able to accomodate both railway and footpath/ cycle track at the same time. As this is in England, we are looking at least 50 more years ahead.

John

 

If the opening of the line through to Buxton is no longer an option is there any point in Peak Rail retaining the Buxton site? Could this be sold off to fund future developments at Rowsley?