peak rail derbyshire

[craigmason197!]

Can i ask fellow rail fans do you think that they will ever finish this restoration and join matlock end back upto buxton so you can get on a train in matlock and get off in buxton.

 

[gazthomas]

I would see this as being a very slim possibility, as much as I would like to see it.

 

[birchesgreen]

I doubt it, the only way is if the government take the line over and restore it themselves (as has been mooted)

 

[AndyY1951]

For all sorts of reasons I think Peak rail has turned into one of the biggest missed opportunities of preservation. Not a lot to show for four decades of work.
At the same time, given the 'missing link' nature of the route, I really believe it should be reopened as part of the National Network. Travelling from the Northwest to Derby is not a convenient journey, either via Sheffield or Crewe.

 

[xc170]

I'd like to see it, but I doubt it will any time soon.

Running into the NR station in Matlock was quite an achievement, I believe extending as far as Bakewell would be the most realistic proposal for Peak Rail.

 

[Harpers Tate]

....and even that seems unlikely, given the missing bridges at Rowsley. Those are the type of obstacle that typically is a show-stopper for cash-strapped preservations. Indeed it would probably be "easier" to relay track from Bakewell to Peak Forest, than from Rowsley to Bakewell - that part of the formation is complete.

 

[craigmason197!]

From peak rail on there facebook page
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

 

[Baxenden Bank]

From peak rail on there facebook page
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

4 miles in 42 years. Do the maths for completion date through to Buxton. They do, of course, have a brand new bridge, hardly used, in the centre of Buxton available for re-location if need be.

 

[The_Engineer]

4 miles in 42 years. Do the maths for completion date through to Buxton.

It sounds like their study has the aim of getting the line opened by Network Rail for stone traffic, at taxpayer's expense, but then operate a heritage passenger service on the line. I would call this "pie in the sky", being my politest option. If the line I reopened for freight, it precludes heritage trains unless they all comply to Network Rail running standards?

If taxpayer's money is going in I am sure it would be only on the basis of reinstatement to Network Rail passengers standards for both franchised passenger services and freight....

 

[Baxenden Bank]

It sounds like their study has the aim of getting the line opened by Network Rail for stone traffic, at taxpayer's expense, but then operate a heritage passenger service on the line. I would call this "pie in the sky", being my politest option. If the line I reopened for freight, it precludes heritage trains unless they all comply to Network Rail running standards?

If taxpayer's money is going in I am sure it would be only on the basis of reinstatement to Network Rail passengers standards for both franchised passenger services and freight....

Indeed.

NYMR operate over NR lines into Whitby so it would be possible. People associated with Peak Rail have experience of NR acceptance procedures, so not an entirely unrealistic prospect, but whether they have the skills and resources sufficient for sustained long term, long distance operation over NR metals is a different matter. NYMR have only a limited amount of their stock / staff passed for big railway operation.

 

[The Crab]

A joint venture between the quarry companies and Peak Rail might get round the Notwork Rail problem.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Indeed. In fact it could be run as a Light Railway (so, 25mph etc) which would negate any need for passenger trains to use special coaching stock or permissions - unless/until it has to traverse the "real" railway at or near Buxton.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. In fact it could be run as a Light Railway (so, 25mph etc) which would negate any need for passenger trains to use special coaching stock or permissions - unless/until it has to traverse the "real" railway at or near Buxton.

I doubt they would get permission to do that unless they also made arrangements so heritage passenger and freight weren't out on the line at the same time. Conceivably, if they ran the freight only at night, they might avoid having to build a new passing loop somewhere between Matlock and Ambergate.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Why? "Light" in this context doesn't necessarily translate into weight. Surely a huge Steam Locomotive dragging 8 coaches full of happy smiling faces is hardly "light? The NYMR has had various visiting "real" trains over the years as well; recently an HST made it to Pickering for the first time. At 25mph of course.

 

[edwin_m]

Why? "Light" in this context doesn't necessarily translate into weight. Surely a huge Steam Locomotive dragging 8 coaches full of happy smiling faces is hardly "light? The NYMR has had various visiting "real" trains over the years as well; recently an HST made it to Pickering for the first time. At 25mph of course.

Heritage railways are allowed to use Mk1 stock which is generally banned on the main line due to crashworthiness concerns. They are also exempted from the requirement for TPWS or similar train protection system, which on its own has reduced the collision risk by about two thirds on the main line. In return for this and various other exemptions they accept the restriction to 25mph. I'm uncertain of the conditions under which NYMR runs to Whitby but they wouldn't normally share the line with anything more than the occasional Sprinter and speeds of both types of train are quite low.

Introducing thousand-tonne freight trains into the mix clearly increases the risk profile so needs some extra measures to offset it, and time segregation is probably the simplest. It would be interesting to know the conditions under which the West Someset ran heavy freight for the sea wall at Minehead a few years back, but I'd be very surprised if there were any passenger trains working at the same time.

 

[craigmason197!]

from derbyshire times https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/o...consider-peak-district-railway-line-1-9086593
Proposals to revive a disused rail line through the Peak District have moved a step forward, but not the passenger service some have called for. A consortium of major quarry companies and Peak Rail, which operates the heritage service between Rowsley and Matlock, is to issue a tender for bids to carry out a feasibility study on extending the line north-west to Peak Forest. Consultants will be invited to explore the engineering and administrative challenges involved, to identify any issues and potential costs. Paul Tomlinson, the project director for Peak Rail, said: “The principal motivation is to provide a more direct route for the expanding stone traffic between the Peak District, the Midlands and the south of England and thereby relieve the busy passenger rail routes it currently follows.” The consortium involves quarries towards the northern end of the proposed line, including Tarmac and Breedon Aggregates, who would look to secure private finance for the project. Paul said: “Network Rail and Transport for the North are looking for ways to speed up passenger journeys on the Hope Valley line linking Sheffield with Manchester. “By rerouting freight traffic, you could reduce congestion and the government would not need to pay for it.”He added: “With major infrastructure projects like HS2, Crossrail 2 and the Heathrow expansion, demand for aggregates is expected to rise and Derbyshire is a major source.” Peak Rail has long held ambitions to reopen the line between Buxton and Matlock, so it can extend heritage services. Paul said: “We now realise the cost and works involved would be beyond us as a voluntary organisation, but this would be a way to achieve our goal and benefit the local tourist industry. "The leisure and tourism benefits may ultimately prove contentious, as the old line ran along what is now the Monsal Trail, a popular walking route. Paul said: “The feasibility study will also look at any costs involved over the wider network and in continuing to cater for walking and cycling within the national park. "At present, there are no plans to include a full passenger service, despite an ongoing online petition with 10,000 signatures calling for it. Paul said: “That’s certainly not on our agenda. A mainline passenger service would mean the costs would escalate through the roof.” The study is expected to be complete later this year.

 

[Glenmutchkin]

Heritage railways are allowed to use Mk1 stock which is generally banned on the main line due to crashworthiness concerns.

Are you sure about that? For example the SRPS has an extensive programme of Main Line Railtours lined up for this summer using a full rake of Mark Ones. I believe that there are other operators using Mk Ones as well.

 

[Flying Phil]

Just to add that Great Central Railway (Nottingham) run down to Loughborough on a track that is also worked by NR for the Gypsum traffic to East Leake from the MML.

 

[Rover]

Are you sure about that? For example the SRPS has an extensive programme of Main Line Railtours lined up for this summer using a full rake of Mark Ones. I believe that there are other operators using Mk Ones as well.

I believe for safety reasons you have to have a mk2 on either end of a rake of mk1s if the first and last mk1 vehicle is conveying fare-paying passengers.

 

[Glenmutchkin]

I believe for safety reasons you have to have a mk2 on either end of a rake of mk1s if the first and last mk1 vehicle is conveying fare-paying passengers.

Interesting theory but not how it works in practice.

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting theory but not how it works in practice.

Various charter companies now have exemptions to run full rakes of Mk1s but I believe they are still subject to special conditions. That's why I said "generally" in my previous post.

 

[43096]

Just to add that Great Central Railway (Nottingham) run down to Loughborough on a track that is also worked by NR for the Gypsum traffic to East Leake from the MML.

For the avoidance of doubt, the track down to Loughborough is owned by the GCRN.

 

[Raul_Duke]

Much as it would be nice to see, I think this is at best, pie in the sky. Could be a nice new Jag for a consultancy firm director though.

Never in a billion years will they reopen the route along the Monsal trail.

All those nice middle class families rocking up to Hassop in their BMW 4x4’s to rent bikes would be apoplectic.

Not to mention the citizens of Bakwell and various other places that have post 60’s houses built right up to the line. They won’t be enamoured at bloody great aggregate trains rumbling past and shaking their foundations.

And I’m prepared to bet the farm that you wouldn’t be allowed to build a brand new route through the Peak District nowadays. (see again: nice middle class families.)

This is about as likely as that bizarre Worcester cable car in another thread.

 

[edwin_m]

Just to add that Great Central Railway (Nottingham) run down to Loughborough on a track that is also worked by NR for the Gypsum traffic to East Leake from the MML.

GCR(N) is worked as one train in section, all the way from Loughborough to the former Ruddington station I think, and I believe the gyspum trains only run Monday-Friday with heritage trains only at weekends. So there is no question of the two types of train encountering each other. This is the sort of model I suggested for Peak Rail in a previous post.

 

[theblackwatch]

I believe for safety reasons you have to have a mk2 on either end of a rake of mk1s if the first and last mk1 vehicle is conveying fare-paying passengers.

That was a regulation that came into effect in 2003 (it only referred to the rear vehicle in a formation though), but it was dropped a few years ago.