Peak Rail Annual Report and Action Group

The Plc management's track record is NOT one of openness and transparency, quite the opposite in fact. Clinging to power is the name of the game so I would think the Company Secretary has gone through any enemy proxy forms with a fine tooth comb, obviously I'm sure that we can have complete confidence in all proxy forms being treated with the same degree of scrutiny and fairness...

The AGM result is disappointing but it's a classic example of Peak Rail's Board in action. Waffle, spin, delaying tactics, blame everyone else rather than admit to any shortcomings. It's merely a setback, there will be plenty more twists and turns before we get Peak Rail back on track.

I'd genuinely like to know the opinions of supporters of the current Board. Peak Rail's problems go deeper than the legal goings on, I personally don't understand why people believe that voting for 'more of the same' will somehow lead to a radical transformation of our fortunes. Oh well, we will just have to work harder and smarter to secure Peak Rail's future.

 

I don't know how many votes deployed out of 750,000, but the vote in the (very full) room on item 4, approving the accounts, was 177 in favour, 31 against with 13 abstentions. That's not to say searching questions weren't asked, especially regarding future liabilities and provision for them, and it's obvious the plc have to up their game, the chairman saying the mistakes of the past must not be repeated. However if PRAG are going to get real traction they have to say what their vision is, and importantly how they are going to get the volunteers on board - they need to convince folk they are not doing it just to protect their considerable investment at Darley Dale. Only one of their number (I assume he was a PRAG supporter, chap in a maroon top) came across as someone who really knew how to address a meeting, and possibly sway opinion. Circumstances may change of course but at the moment I'd say they have a mountain to climb.

Re the 'Dead Cat' I tried to take notes and if I can make sense of them I'll post later, it actually is of interest to a lot of people.

Dave

 

One of the board may well be watching this discussion, from overhearing a bit of a conversation yesterday, one ardent supporter of Mrs S is watching this thread and passing on the sentiment it is exposing, so the joint managing directors know whats been said! Of note is that directors step down in rotation for re election, unless you are a managing director, according to the articles of the PLC, they don't have to. One shareholder asked if the joint managing directors should do the honorable deed of resigning, as its their (her) responsibility that the railway is in the position it is, this was quickly rebuffed!!!!!!
Mrs S stated that the railway had made profit in the years before 2017 and it was the Grinsty case that had caused the loses in 2017, it was pointed out from the floor that if they had been paying the steaming fees for the loco in use, then those years were also operated at a lose. I would say that the volunteers are in two camps, in support of the current management and those that are unhappy but stay on because of the time they have invested in the railway.

Regarding the great expansion plan, I don't see how Peak Rail will fit into this scheme, if according to the lady who asked about Network Rail's involvement at each end of the line and their next five year plan starts soon, therefor no other work will be done on the Matlock branch, as there is none planned, so that infers that it's going to be six years away before the line is operational. It follows then that Peak Rail will need to massively upgrade their "kit" between now and then, Austerity saddle tank loco's won't last long on a 30+ mile round trip to Buxton, besides the need for all the stock to pass Network Rail's exams and comply with TPWS OTMR etc. The North York Moors does it to Whitby and the Swanage line to Wareham, so running preserved trains on the National Network is an option.

It is possible that the backers of the project will look at the management, and get fed up with them and go it alone, no doubt if they can show a national need for the project then they could compulsory purchase the land under Peak Rail. How much will Peak Rail be charged for use of the line from Rowsley to Blackwell Mill? How much to run along Ashwood Dale to Buxton? The heart loves the idea, but..........

 

This is my take on the Dead Cat, i.e. going north, please don't shoot the messenger if it's a bit disjointed or I've missed key points!

PR PLC Directors Paul Tomlinson and Martin Gadsby have been looking at northwards expansion for several years, and have had to sign NDAs so there is probably more information not yet revealed.

One option is to extend the line to Rowsley proper via LRO (should that be TWO?). Done completely by a contractor this would cost £1.5M, with volunteers about £600k. Problems are a poor station site south of the industrial estate, with the original station site only usable if going further north.

There was no allowance in the previous Railtrack or Derbyshire County Council studies for a heritage railway like PR. Another more recent study by (former?) senior BR managers looked at PR running Buxton to Millers Dale, however this was to be funded by the government, i.e. it’s not going to happen.

Going to Bakewell or Hassop with a Transport and Works Order – many drawbacks and hurdles, also Haddon opposed.

Peak Park – more supportive than previously but Paul and Martin got grilled by them, and just running to Bakewell would be unacceptable, the line would have to go all the way and the Monsal Trail would have to be moved. Their recent Management Plan said ‘no heritage railways’. PR objected to this as being outside their powers, it went to a full meeting and the ‘no heritage’ clause was struck out. The Government Inspector was not happy with the authority’s anti-railway stance.

The idea of quarry traffic heading south was first put forward five years ago by Mike Garratt, Chairman of MDS Transmodal (and I see he was a speaker at the recent Northern Transport Summit which Chris Grayling famously missed), some meetings were held but at that time there was no pressing reason to take it forward and it was shelved.

The late Stuart Smith told PR he had heard a rumour of a new study and Mike Garratt now the Transport for the North Freight Consultant was contacted by Paul T. The issue now was the lack of capacity on the Hope Valley unless freight was taken off, plus with HS2 trains now planned to use the original Chesterfield – Sheffield line, freight blocking Dore South Jct. is now seen as a real problem. So, if quarry traffic could use a re-opened Peak Line there would be more paths, a shorter route and access to new markets – HS2 itself and Heathrow runway 3 mentioned. It is now TfN’s preferred route for freight.

(Andrew Briddon commented that the quarry traffic would have access rights to the Hope Valley whatever happened, to which Paul Tomlinson responded he could take it up with Mike Garratt.)

Several meetings have taken place, it’s been discussed at the DfT even to the detail of what PR’s train timetable would be.

A consortium would be formed, PR being very much a junior partner, with the quarries financing and building the line which would be a light railway with 25mph running. Any passenger facilities e.g. run-round loops, platforms etc. would have to be provided by PR.

Paul T said this was probably PR’s last chance, also that had the Peak Park not been so opposed originally the line would have been open years ago.


I realise there are a lot more questions than answers but it's more information than we've had previously. It's also an admission that Peak Rail has failed to achieve its aims under its own steam. Will it ever happen, I don't know? What worries me is that badly needed developments on the railway will be put on hold possibly for years in case it does happen. We shall see.

Dave

 

I agree with Dave in post #362, the Action group need to win over the volunteers and members with a vision of openness at board level downwards, to consolidate the railway's position for the future and a management that will not alienate an external source of peak line re opening, should it come about.

An old saying is that you can fool all the people some of the time but not all the people all the time! The action group need to get the rank and file members to see past the Grinsty / Briddon fall outs that Mrs S is constantly making the action group the cover all for user's of the railway's resources for their own gain.

If you take out the Board's proxy vote, then add the say 10 voided proxy votes, item 4 was passed with approx 100 for and 41 against - doesn't look so good then, so every proxy vote voided could make a difference at future meetings. The chairman refused to look at any voided proxy votes that had been given to Pete Briddon, he just said they were not signed or email's, so a chance for the board show some transparency was missed.

 

]I suppose more,private means of discussion are needed to be found than this public thread? Presumably the combatants during the WSR saga kept an eye on their thread, where all and sundry was discussed verbatim across a few hundred pages.

 

To put matters straight there was only 3 void proxies received not the 10 which has been quoted. The Chair of the meeting held a total of 107 valid proxies.

 

When you say a vote in the room, do you mean a show of hands?

 

Indeed. It was a severe set back for the WSR it seems and as far as the Association is concerned appears still not over. However there are lessons in that saga for those unhappy with things at Peak Rail.

 

The chairman held - 107 votes via proxies to which he raised his voting card ,the rest where with a show of hands

 

Thanks. so based on your 221 total votes re the accounts, only 31 shareholders either present or by proxy voted against, which is 14%. On the face of it, assuming this is itself a proxy for satisfaction with the board, there is a long way to go to convert a majority to the PRAG point of view. There is usually a mechanism for demanding a poll, but presumably PRAG decided it might do even worse going that route?

 

The reason we, have to top and tail into matlock has been explained before.

 

I think the gremlins got in to my previous post. The reasons for top and tailing are understood, and we're fine at the time. I was buoyed up when we got access and paid for a running in board! The problem is that it is expensive and unsustainable and the track layout causes excessive wear to wheelsets. By now we ought to have a costed Matlock Station Plan for improving the passenger facilities and be discussing options with Network Rail...there are competent volunteers and supporters with the professional skills to take on the task (as with so many other PR improvements) IF the management team was able to fully engage with us.

 

Great summary Dave. It was interesting to hear that and I wish it could be articulated to all the members on the railway. Perhaps it should be a regular feature in Peak Express?

The key thing for me is that if there is a green light for the railway to re-open, then I can’t believe the local community and authorities won’t be banging at the door to demand a passenger service between Derby and Manchester. Because if I was them, I would!

So where would this leave Peak Rail?

I still feel there is still a golden opportunity for Peak Rail, and that would be at the weekends. But we seriously need to up our game.

First and foremost would be to get in writing what our access would be and what our partners’ expectations are (Partners = quarry companies, Peak Park, local authorities, local communities, groups, share holders and members on the line, basically all the stake holders).

Once we have that knowledge then we can really begin to plan ahead so that we are ready for when the line does open. This means designing a more cost effective arrangement at Matlock, making Darley Dale the authentic crown jewel on the railway and making Rowsley the hub to support an expanded railway. Rowsley will require a lot of infrastructure work: Electric, water and sewer ground works, island platform, water tower supplying shed and platforms, extended loco shed with visitor facilities, carriage shed with visitor facilities, Pway/S&T shed, narrow gauge rail route and a defined visitor access route.

It is all possible, if planned out and people/groups are enabled to work the agreed plan.

And if it doesn’t open? Well we will have one of the best short lines there is!

At the end of the day, besides it getting dark, we can’t stay as we are. Whatever happens we need to get through this bad period some how and start making progress that we can all enjoy. When I read the railway press I see all the positive progress being made by other railways, and then articles about the trouble at Peak Rail. This needs the change. We need every stakeholder internal and external to feel positive about the railway and what it has to offer. We need to make positive and constructive progress.


Only then we can be seen as serious partners and contributors to a re-opened line.

 

Can't argue with any of #377. Meanwhile, knowing only what I've read here, I understand what the Action Group is about but fail to understand what is driving those still in power. In the WSRA saga the incumbents had at least two apparent motives; fear of a PLC "takeover" of their assets and a prospect of lots of cash from a developer, though neither of those explains the sale of certain shares. It would be interesting to know whether the Peak Rail directors truly believe that they have acted appropriately and if so why they believe that.

 

You neglected a further motive - power. Whether it is seeking more, or the belief that no one else understands so you are indispensable, whether sought selfishly or for altruistic reasons, that dimension cannot be ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not sure why the shares subject came into the post 378, but as far as the take over view is concerned that seems to be why the owners of 4160 were so concerned. I know the WSRA history and 4160 web sites are 'foreign territory' for many but they do present the other side of the coin.
The same applies here to Peak Rail and its groupings; there are always two sides to an issue. But, it is common for one side to become deeply entrenched - see Rother Valley tread. When the insults and character assassinations (which actually is against new forum rules) start, I usually feel that that it often suggests a weak case is being held.