Peak Rail General Discussion

Quick pic of the coal waggon now its painted up,pic wouldn't.upload the other.day

Tscchhh. Technology

 

Below an official press release,shared widely on nat pres and social media.


PRESS RELEASE


NEW PARTNERSHIP TO EXAMINE VIABILITY OF RAILWAY REINSTATEMENT


In the next few weeks, in partnership with the major quarry companies operating in the Peak District and after several years of analysis, Peak Rail will be issuing a tender for bids to examine the engineering and administrative feasibility of reinstating the rail link between Peak Forest and Rowsley on the Buxton to Matlock route that was closed to through rail traffic 50 years ago on 1st July 1968. This will principally be to provide a more direct route for the expanding stone traffic between the Peak District and the Midlands and the South of England and to thereby relieve some of the busy passenger rail routes it currently follows. Since its formation in 1975 Peak Rail has reopened 4 miles of the railway from Matlock to Rowsley South for heritage operation and will be able to extend its own services further into the Peak Park to the benefit of the local tourist industry. The study would also look at any costs involved over the wider network and in continuing to cater for walking and cycling within the National Park.


END

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note to Editors:


For further information on any of the details contained in this Press Release please contact either Paul Tomlinson (Project Director) on 01332 767713 or Martin Gadsby (Assistant Project Director) on 0749 5282566

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Registered Office:

Peak Rail plc, Matlock Station, Matlock, Derbyshire. DE4 3NA

Telephone: 01629 580381

Email@ peakrail@peakrail.co.uk

Website: www.peakrail.co.uk

 

Blimey, that's a piece of good news! Good idea, linking up with a partner with the same interests.

 

If it comes to fruition and is done right then yes.

In other local news the wessie service gets a leg up too

https://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/...trains-on-buxton-to-manchester-line-1-9075969

 

And maybe get free ballast too..

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

a map of the area would be handy, I find the lines up there really confusing

 

It’s been a bit saddening to see some of the negative comments elsewhere about the Peak Rail announcement. I would have thought any initiative to expand rail capacity is very welcome, no matter from what quarter it comes.

Things have changed since previous studies were done, and it’s all about capacity these days. The context is that the three passenger operators using the Hope Valley line all want to run more services, the Earle’s Cement traffic isn’t going away, and even extra loops going in doesn’t solve the problem as quarry output is expanding, trains are getting longer and loading so heavily that the current motive power is at the limit, therefore once stopped the trains take a deal of time to get up to speed. There is even the risk that if trains heading south towards Chesterfield get slowed or stopped at Dore South Jct they could block back onto the Hope Valley, shades of the American rail experience. All of this is why the industry is heavily involved and serious about the study. I should add that the participating parties had to sign non-disclosure agreements until yesterday’s press release, and that more announcements will be forthcoming.

I grant a study is just that and no more, but a couple of associated matters have caught my eye, namely a planning application to refurbish the 1904 viaduct at Millers Dale, a long loop is going in at Cromford and something which keeps cropping up, a predicted shortage of HGV drivers – anyone for convoys of driverless 8-wheeler stone trucks on the A6?

Lastly, Peak Rail has often been criticised for abandoning its Buxton operation, but if they hadn’t started the ball rolling at Darley Dale in the 1980s the old main line would now be the A6 road – with a roundabout where Church Lane crossing is and not a hope in hell of rail returning - food for thought.

Cheers

Dave

 

Would a positive study conclusion neutralise the previous one undertaken by DCC?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I welcome this announcement, as a necessary first step towards reopening a line that I believe should never have been closed. I have seen articles in Modern Railways about the potential of the line, and agree wholeheartedly that it is a necessary route.

My concern is with the organisation, and their credibility to deliver. Compared to other preserved lines that have been open a similar time, Peak Rail has achieved rather less. The fact - regardless of merits - of the existence of an action group suggests an organisation with internal issues - not a good platform for significant development.

I hope my scepticism is proved wrong.

 

PR need a separate company to deliver the extension, leaving the existing management to continue running the existing heritage operation only..

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

That might be an answer, but equally might just as likely raise other questions.

 

It's how the K&ESR treated the Robertsbridge extension, keeping the main company at a distance from the risky bit.

 

I'd welcome development of this nature. It's of far more relevance than a preserved line.

 

Reading this thread and others it seems the "risky bit" is the extant railway, not the extension into Honeypot Country...

 

I absolutely respect your position, and it is true, capacity is an issue, here in buxton we are seeing that new quarry sidings have been approved to be built just outside the station, I believe that northern rail are increasing services to half hourly so operating paths for quarry trains through the junction will be reduced. but I do not see how peak rail are ever going to be taken seriously in the eyes of the quarry companies, the margin for feasibility will be slim in any case, and the cost of signalling for passenger carrying trains will make the margin slimmer at best, PR doesn't have any ownership or access rights on the route to bargain with and PR's position in buxton is becoming all the slimmer with this white elephant hospital and retirement complex that the council want to build on the old midland site, and the old hogshaw loco shed site is earmarked for a monstrous housing development so that can't be utilised for anything either. I don't see how the cycle trails would continue to operate either, steam trains through long tunnels, large diesels is completely another, and the track would probably be centered through the tunnels for the large hoppers. I would also add that the millers dale viaduct is remedial work and I personally don't think it will ever be able to carry rail traffic again being that it was deemed the worst of the two 20 - 30 years ago when the trail opened.

 

Parish notice as usual

Sheffield Model Railway Exhibition

Birkdale School, Broomhill, Sheffield S10 3DH
Exhibition entrances from Oakholme Road, and Endcliffe Crescent

Sat 24 March 1000-1700
Sun 25 March 1000-1700

I will be there with the Peak Rail sales stall
(stall No 6 in Hall 1 (the large one)


Can I just take this opportunity to mention that we would be pleased to sell your surplus model railway items and accessories in return for 20% sales commission to Peak Railway Association.


Dave

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Sharp, Peak Railway Association (Sheffield Branch)
1, Birch Farm Avenue, Little Norton, Sheffield S8 8GH

(h) 0114 274 5478
(m) 07950 787 231 (phone or text)
(e) d.sharp@sheffield.ac.uk

(meetings) www.peakrail.co.uk/sheffieldbranch

 

If there is any half-way reasonable prospect of reinstating the line to carry stone traffic, sufficient to justify a feasibility study, then I would expect the quarry companies to be sufficiently interested to put up the (for them) modest cost for the sake of the potential flexibility for their traffic. The County Council could also have some interest for the sake of possible environmental benefits - though from their point of view there would probably be little to choose between the stone traffic going out via Chinley or via Matlock.

 

Just a thought on the viaducts.. when the trail opened the peak park authority chose the oldest viaduct at millers dale because they considered it the best to save for historic reasons, it was inferior by design only being kept for capacity by the Midland, other viaducts of this type were replaced on the way to buxton in the 1900s, in the 80s they could only justify to restore the old viaduct the newer one being left with BR property board, at one time it was offered to Peak Rail but probably wisely they did not take it on ( they did take on the Rowsley viaduct ). Now its in the care of the Highways, Residual Rail authority who have submitted plans for limited restoration to make it safe.. However the main structure is in very good condition, being much stronger than the older viaduct, the main issue is wasted latice work of the fencing, this is somewhat superficial & they plan to repair this, I would suggest that this viaduct can easily be repaired for the safe carriage of trains...

 

Having looked at this earlier today, I agree whole heartedly. That bridge is in surprisingly good condition.

Be amazing to see trains on that line, its stunningly pretty and there is space for a path and a single track railway to co exist.

 

I can now see why Harv wanted the Palvan repairing, besides needing, it would look goof in a freight train with the 21 tonner. The LMS grey brakevan is also getting a good dose of TLC too...with a big hammer! at the moment it is a framework and being prepared for some frame work repairs