Peak Rail at Matlock.

There used to be (still is?) something caled "Sparks and Steams" i think that it covered a number of heritage lines and the tramway museum.

 

Is that based on the views of the boats etc or for accomodation too? (The beers a given of course!).

 

There is a marvellous view from the car park, and its far enough up the hill to get peace and quiet. The accommodation is good. Chris the landlord is a former railway volunteer- doesn't have the time these days.

Tim

 

Bit like me then! But I'll be back .... The pub is definitely on the list for this year's peak district visitation. Cheers, Iain

 

What beers does Chris serve?

 

The Hartington Breweries products mostly. I had a very nice "Wren's Nest" there a few hors ago.

Tim

 

I'll have to try a pint - what's an Asset Protection Agreement (apart from the obvious an agreement to protect assets)

 

Woody, I am surprised at a man of your IT capabilities asking a question like that! Type "Asset Protection Agreement" into google and about the first link that pops up is a draft NetworkRail standard form general purpose ASPRO. It is a very unfriendly looking document 50 pages long referring to a number of subsdiary codes of practice,and will have to be customised to meet the needs of the particular case, at a cost. It defines what is to be done, how it is to be done, standards of work, inspection, insurance and absolultely anything else imaginable.

Tim

 

yes, fortunately we also spoke to ORR first as regards our proposals so that as newcomers to the game so to speak we would have some idea of what we needed to do and what if anything in the asset protection agreement we may not neccessarily need to do, there are some things that the document goes overkill on and other things weve had to look into with assistance from above on how to proceed ,

the majority of the paperwork is now in action,hence two years of paperwork from my end, for instance im aware of say the swanage/NYMR/Spa valley,preston docks railway,other similar operations paperwork etcetera,had to look into this to see how they did theres, the NYMR is a very thorough 100 or so page document, for instance, speed checks on locomotives...their solution was to use satnav type gear as you can get a pretty acurate reading from them nowadays,a simple solution there.ive seen other railways carrying out similar spot checks like this..

another item was that technically were not running on the main line but on a siding into matlock,weve had to discuss with the relevant parties how that figures into the equation etc.what limitations this emplies,how does that benefit each organisation....the signalling plans were the simple bit!!

theres still a way to go in paperwork terms,as is always the case with modern things theres a forrest or two before you get the signature on the dotted line,but all this is in process with the relevant parties...hope that helps chaps.

 

In hindsight i should have let this subject rest (for a little while longer at least). Call me stupid shouldn't these issues have been identified some time ago or is this a very new development / requirement from NR?

 

NOT AT ALL, youre entitled to ask the question, i believe tree cutting is to start soon on the patch of land we need to use for the connection, and we will soon start on building up the replacement parts for the pointwork,good job as im nearly finished on the box woodwork and all,so onto next job..

 

tree cutting work has started, elsewhere were getting ready for tracklaying by pre assembling pointwork and track components at rowsley, this is only for our own riverside works-- not the bit on NR land or in the matlock station!!please note!!.

 

tracklaying at Riverside has started to connect to NR,over the next few weeks the trackwork and some smaller items of signalling will start to go in,followed by the box and the signals.

 

cool, hope to visit next gala or event

 

Thanks to Pete,Ian,John,Stuart, we removed all the old bolts from the steelwork that supports the lever framework for Matlock and started to repaint it at the same time, we also finished off the mechanical stores and attended a few other jobs as well,that was saturdays work

today the lads continued to fit out the track work to connect the point in between us and NR,the panels to connect come next,(Monday) we started to fit the s&t bits to the hand point end which will eventually be driven from the signal-box there,marked out where all the insulated joints need to go for the track circuiting which will be next weeks work,together with signal pulleys, tomorrow we move onto the new connecting point between us and NR and fit that out, then the rest of the week we move onto the current ground frame as the stretcher rods and soleplate need changing for insulated versions and the ferrules inserting into the insulated side of the lock rod.

its been dry and cold but we should get the main stuff done on S&T side before the rains on thursday.

we plan towards the end of the month to prewire the location cupboards for derwent bridge and the box up at rowsley to speed things up somewhat now weve space in the workshop.

il update more during the week

 

I have put together a collection of photographs showing the preparation work done by the S&T Dept in connection with the extension into Matlock Station. The pictures cover a period of around two years and start with the acquisition of the Luffenham signal box. The collection will be updated as often as I have new pictures now that work is underway on the extension itself

http://photosbyp.fotopic.net/c1917258.html

Pete

 

(copied over from other peak rail thread)

Thanks Pete. I understand now.

If Im honest I think its a shame that a crossover cant be installed under the Matlock station road bridge, with run rounds timed so mainline dmu's are not at Matlock when running round on platform 1, with priority given to mainline trains.
a peak rail signal box controlling it with an employed signal man(if that would help make a difference), and locked out of use on weekdays.

seems simple to me, I actually think it could work in practice, but id imagine its all paperwork,money and red tape.

mainline trains are running slow and stopping at Matlock anyway, its not like its a high speed mainline.

if Network rail are allowing un mainline registered peak rail trains onto there stretch of line into platform 2, albeit protected from theyre own running line, then why not let a light engine use platform 1 line when the line is clear?

access for the light engine to platform 1 could be by via spring operated points too, so
no need for a signal man, or fireman to get down, just a network rail colour light to give the right away.

if the problem is that the peak rail loco has to be mainline registered, the only way I could think it could be overcome is if peak rail where able to take over the whole of the track at Matlock station, and then they allow Network rail trains to run into platform 1.

id imagine even if peak rail did think this would all work they wouldnt ask so as not to upset Network rail after such long discussions. I imagine this has all been pondered behind closed doors already many times.



What could also be an issue is if there is a steam loco waiting at riverside station, potential punters may make a bee line for it, then would have to be told if they want to ride on it they have to walk to Matlock station.

and then of course there is the issue of 2 steam locos itself, will peak rail be hiring any in? the costs for that or even running 2 locos for 1 train will be higher.

my comments and questions are not meant to be derogatory, I love the line and want to see the best for it. I do realise its all pie in the sky and the railway can only do what theyre allowed to.


cheers

Mike

 

I think it was found that the only realistic way PR could run into Matlock down platform was to work it as a 'long siding' so avoiding registration of stock for mainline running etc. I expect Dom can confirm this. Previous schemes put forward could have seen PR entirely independent of NR lines but would have either had a separate station or run into the bay rather than the old down platform.

DaveW

 

Mike,

Perhaps consider the current works as the railway does-

Phase 1- reconnection to NR and signalling to allow trains on and off
Phase 2- restoration of the down platform to allow our trains in, using Riverside as a stabling point for locos.

Once we're in, it's a foot in the door. Yes, pain in the bum to have two locos running one train- (3 coach trains with a push pull fitted coach at one end in the future perhaps?), or maybe some alterations to the layout one day -Phase 3!. Mention has been made of the loop at Riverside, which will be effectively shortened a little for trains coming in from Matlock Town, compared to the current accommodation for 7 carriages. With the signal box being positioned where it will be, might be feasible to extend the loop over bridge 35, which will even out the weight going across this structure, but it is likely to require some attention in the not too distant future, so that would happen then.

Dave's point of 'realistic' is a good one- there is lots of stuff we can do at Matlock to make the working more convenient and intensive, and the current work might appear to have some odd features, but the idea is to get in and stay in, and then develop from there once the dust has settled.

Zebedee is on the way...

The bay has been mentioned a few times, might be worth mentioning that it was never a bay in the 'Great Western branchline to Little-Paddlington-in-the-Slush' kinda way, it was a short length of platform outside the parcels shed to park a van or six on. The short distance to the parcels shed- now bus station- along the bay would have meant that by the time we'd gotten far enough away from the shed for the headshunt and points, there would be very little platform left for the train, and would either have required a new platform on the end of the old up platform (chunk out of the car park for that and two lines of rail), or a shorter platform and a single line, to top and tail in and out of. Hang on, that sounds like what we're getting from Platform 2!

Ben

 

"What could also be an issue is if there is a steam loco waiting at riverside station, potential punters may make a bee line for it, then would have to be told if they want to ride on it they have to walk to Matlock station."

I had to smile at that- it would be ironic if, after all these years of the shop staff at Matlock batting passengers up the path, and then pavement, to Riverside, someone made their way out of the town to Riverside and was deflected back into Matlock after the station has closed! (But not been demolished). I'll buy that punter a cup of tea and a muffin!

Yes, some handy signage on the pedestrian approach to Riverside should help there. I would suggest the number of passengers stumbling across Riverside, especially visitors to Matlock, would be fewer than those who find Town station, but we shall have to see how things roll out.

Ben