Peak Rail Annual Report and Action Group

And it may be that proximity is an asset, allowing them to benefit from each other’s presence. I’d also mention Crich, of close enough likeness in the eyes of the general public.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Indeed, the accounts and notes have been crafted to present them as a triumph, but they are anything but. Unfortunately the headline profit is probably enough to convince the sleeping majority of shareholders that the Board is doing a fine job. Far from it. Strip out PRs (very) good fortune in receiving a £110k legacy donation and our turnover is only £265k. Train fare revenue increased by £6k, which is welcome of course but I suspect is less to do with an increase in passenger numbers and more to do with higher ticket prices (the Board has long struggled to add up and report its passenger numbers or trends, so we don’t know if numbers are up or down).

Shop sales and buffet/restaurant sales are barely changed (despite the good weather last year and the popular new cycle path alongside), hardly a ringing endorsement of the Board’s commercial abilities.

Expenditure has been reduced but it isn’t explained how it has been achieved other than ‘rent, rates & water’ costs have almost halved. It could be a good thing that costs are being controlled or bad that vital investment has been stopped in order to make the accounts look better than they are...

Looking at income versus expenditure it’s clear that we aren’t generating investment funds to improve the railway, and what money there is or was has been squandered on unwinnable legal cases (I think we’re on our 4th or 5th set of solicitors). There’s no mention of giving up on Darley Dale main station building or the bridge 35 refurb or the cycle path extension through Rowsley. Re-establishing a presence at Buxton is mentioned again, as it has been for the last however many years, and all hope on reopening the line is now being pinned by the Board on the quarry consortium.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

 

Having walked on the new cycle path from Rowsley South to Rowsley village the other day it is hard to work out where the railway would go/ used to go and looks like it just this short extension would be problematic due to the following:

1. A new bridge is required over the stream just to the north of Rowsley South.
2. The line would need to divert to the left to pass the council tip, looking at google maps suggests that the original line would have not followed this route? Looks to me like major civil engineering of clearing mature trees/undergrowth and building a new trackbed is required.
3. There is a bog where the cycle track has been raised up over this, could not work out if this was the original trackbed or the trackbed was nearer the Derwent in the undergrowth/trees.
4. New station at Rowsley, couldn't see any remains of the old platforms. The site is very tight and looks like there is no room for a run round loop.

Hopefully someone in the no could shed some light on these points.

 

Looking at the old 1:25,000 map on https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ and comparing it with a modern map, it looks as if between Rowsley South and Rowsley practically all of the land between the A6 and the Derwent was taken up by railway, with the main line being alongside the road and the rest of the land between there and the river being sidings. In other words, the original main line of the railway passed between the council tip and the main road, and the tip is on the site of the marshalling yard.

In Rowsley itself, the station was on roughly the site of the Old Station Close car park, and the industrial buildings inside the bend of the A6 are all on ex-railway land, some of them on the main trackbed. The shopping village on the other side of the A6 is also on ex-railway land.

I've attached a screenshot of the map, to help.

 

The £130k is the legal dispute settlement figure, not other cost of sales.

 

Interestingly on the marketing side;
The Y/E accounts for 31 December 2017 (done by 23 May 2018) state "A new website has been introduced..."
Yet the Y/E accounts for 31 December 2018 state "During the year work commenced on producing a new website...launch took place in April"

So is that 2 new websites, or are they repeating the news for a second year?

 

The 2017 accounts stated that it was for "additional, historic steaming fees"
the legal action was started in Sept 2016, & the out of court settlement made in Sept 2017
reports state "Much of the loss can be attributed to costs connected with the legal case between Peak Rail plc and Grinsty Holdings Ltd, which concerned the unauthorised use of the latter’s Hunslet ‘Austerity’ 0-6-0ST Lord Phil (3883/1962), resident on the line between 2011 and 2016."

which suggests that those fees were incurred over multiple years, therefore that £108k (£130k) should be apportioned over the relevant years, & those years accounts restated.


Same with the contingency if they end up paying out.

 

There's a case for either option, the most important factor is to present any exceptional items, risks and liabilities clearly. This year's accounts read well at face value but they have been presented in a way that makes it difficult to probe too deeply. Arguably that's what most organisations do! Sadly most PR shareholders do take them at face value and consequently they let the Directors off the hook. This allows the Board to carry on free of interference. When I look at the Board I don't see any standout characters or fresh thinking to challenge the MD. If anything she has reinforced her position; the former Joint MD and voice of reason has stepped down and the recently appointed Director-who-happens-to-be-a-solicitor has no background or obvious interest in heritage railways. Why would he suddenly want to help PR? Hmm, let me think. Perhaps he is a charitable soul who has shareholder and volunteer interests at heart. Or perhaps, just perhaps his free legal advice will come in handy dealing with any future dissent?! PR has a long history of churning out solicitors letters at the drop of a hat, as former staff and volunteers know all too well.

 

Companies House reports John Bunch formerly of the Mid hants (some time back and not a happy story) has been appointed as a Director.

Hope it works out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It was many years ago (30+?). He was Locomotive Superintendent of the line as well as owning locomotives there. At one point he was totally banned from the site (even though his locomotives were there), I know not the reason for this.

 

I know it got very nasty for a while. Did all the rights and wrongs ever come out?

 

I dont think you will ever get a clear statement or balanced view. Things have moved on and that part is best left in the past. If you lived through it you won't want that wound opened up again.

 

It's a shame how things went.

They reared their ugly head again the other year when the mid hants bought the standard off of him. Cost them an arm and a leg due to the terms and conditions due to them owing him a loco in service. So in the end they payed the price of a working loco for the out of ticket one they got.

There was a report that JB was after another loco, but I never heard anymore after that.

 

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/mr-bunchs-next-loco.1059548/page-8#post-2129143

 

Wasn't 31806 in service to satisfy the condition ?

 

Ah excellent, long suffering shareholders will be giddy with excitement and waiting to see what Mr Bunch can bring to the Peak Rail Sunshine Retirement Home, sorry Board of Directors. I trust that he has project management, marketing, commercial, fundraising and leadership skills because we’re sadly deficient in them IMHO. One thing that the cynical amongst us can be sure of, the MD will not have sanctioned his appointment if she thought he posed any threat to her, so no chance of any immediate change in PR’s fortunes. The lady shows no signs of releasing her iron grip on power...

 

What do people think about damaged bridge 35? I had heard it was long overdue for maintaince. Should the engineer fail the bridge this week has Peak Rail the resources to repair which must run I to many thousands?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

Has the bridge suffered damage in the flooding?

 

One side of bracing broken off , condition of bases cannot yet be seen

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

I'm no bridge engineer, but surely that cross bracing was way too light to be doing anything of much significance?

If that's all that has happened, I doubt it will take much fixing - a similarly riveted set of braces shouldn't take a lot of making up if someone decent has a go at it (I'd think we could make some pretty easily at work).