Peak Rail Annual Report and Action Group

I wonder if, by any chance, Mr. Waterman owns circa 130,000 shares in Peak Rail?

If he has been appointed President of Peak Rail? Were the shareholders consulted before the appointment was made?

 

Good news I say, one person the more tyrannical members of PR management won't want to annoy is Mr W, a good man in my book and his hearts in the right place with the future vision for the railway IMO

 

I hope so, I admire PW’s enthusiasm and many of his achievements. On the other hand some of his projects seem to have been abandoned after the initial enthusiasm waned; and his involvement with Crewe Heritage Centre did not end happily.

 

Hi everyone if you would please take a moment to look at this petition I started over 2 years ago and sign and share it please the petition below currently has 11,560 signatures.

https://www.change.org/p/re-open-the-matlock-bakewell-buxton-and-manchester-railway

 

Add his Garratt to that list!

 

That's one of the projects I had in mind.

 

So ... you're petitioning to close Peak Rail so the line can be reopened as part of the national network?

 

11,560 signatures in over two years...
... I won't lose too much sleep!!!

 

Peak Rail posted this on their Facebook page today

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.

 

Forty plus years to reopen four route miles? Heavily in debt owing to crass management skills. Refusing PRA membership to any one who dares to question the senior management's decisions.

Ensuring the continued successes of the neighbouring EVR by driving away any local railway enthusiasts , especially those with railway operating skills, to that railway.

Peak Rail cannot even get their line past Rowsley South into Rowsley itself.

Railway cognoscenti continue to regard Peak Rail as railway that probably has a future in the insolvency business.

Thus the sad reality of the latest PR statement is that it can only be considered as another attempt at survival by a failing senior management team backed up by a gerrymandered board of directors.

 

Nice idea, but the odds of this happening in my lifetime (I'm 34) would seem incredibly remote. Peak Rail seem to be going backwards and it is unlikely that they will ever have the resources to raise the necessary funds for this type of project. That is going to leave it to either the quarry companies and/or Network Rail to fund. Even if that did happen, which I am dubious about because capacity problems aren't that acute on the relevant lines, will they really want Peak Rail 'in their way' and would PR have the ability to maintain stock at a mainline level?

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

Reinstatement of the line to carry stone traffic between Caldon/Cauldon Low and Stoke is a much smaller project, and even that has been making extremely slow progress.

 

Not necessarily a fair comparison, given that the Peak Forest stone traffic is already railborne.

 

How can Peak Rail afford to issue a tender for this feasibility report, when they are already paying substantial costs to loco owners which seems to be wiping out any profit for at least the last year if not more?

Keith

 

My friend who used to be a volunteer at PR told me this

I know it's not very good the woman in charge at PR didn't want to extend northwards and this Matlock extension was a bloody joke it wasn't designed to top and tail back to Rowsley it was over the network rail bit only it was so bloody boring just driving the loco one way and being dragged back to Rowsley that was her doing

 

Im new to the forum but been following peak rails eventful proceedings from outside looking in. Its sad how a railway which has got a serious amount going for it, has stalled and now got some big internal problems. and when you look at railways like EVR nearby have rocketed in how fast theyve grown got some aims like a 12 wheeled lms diner for services. and i feel peak rail kinda getting behind. Dont think anyone can doubt the commitment of the volunteers there that continue to push on developing the railway and maintaining it and running the trains each weekend. Hope it all comes to a head and resolves itself soon

 

I do wonder if all this talk of a feasibility study might be what is called Dead Catting

Google Dead Cat for the Urban Dictionary definition (link not working)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Susspose got to keep the possibility going that theyll be able to achieve it. Haven't feasibilty studies been done already in the past on reopening the route

 

The most recent study was the 2004 report produced by a consortium of local authorities and other organisations with Derbyshire County Council in the lead; it is freely available on the internet if you google something like "Derby to Manchester Railway Project". To summarise, quarry traffic was assessed as potentially 10 trains per day, plus substantial passenger traffic on a commercial diesel service, which could be once or twice per hour and either to Buxton or to Chinley with substantial passenger loadings. The cost varied between £85M and £120M; whichever option was chosen, the line would make a loss, though the finances might improve in the future. Peak Rail did make a submission, which was evaluated as follows:

"Their strategy envisages a total cost of £35M, although no explanation has been provided as to how this figure was arrived at. Neither does their proposal explain how the "Community Railway" would mesh with the national Railway System in terms of design standards, particularly signalling. An operating subsidy is implied".

Peak Rail will need to do a lot better than that. I see that the partnership is said to be between Peak Rail and the quarry companies and Peak Park and the other local authorities are not involved in the partnership.

 

deleted