Peak Rail Annual Report and Action Group

Technically it’s possible to build an elevator to the moon, it’s all the other things that cause the problems

It’s ironic that you mention the leaning out of windows point, in the talk I did many years back at Kidderminster on connecting the railway to NR the subject of leaning out the window came up in connection with another railway that was in process of connecting their own line up alongside NR at the same time, that line was prevented from running their trains alongside the network at the same time because of that problem, however if you look at many railways that have side by side running (Barry line for eg)the problem doesn’t arise because historically you have signs above the windows to warn folks not to do it and that’s in its basic form is part of the risk aversion to the head out windows problem, I recall the after discussion mentioning that someone from that railway should have chatted with Pr first and used that in their own discussions, so sometimes the PR team do things right Can you imagine not being able to run alongside timetabled mainline services and how that would knock daily runnings

The question is not whether it’s practicable or within funds to do something like build a seperate platform,yes it would be great to not have to top and tail all day long but the question is whether you will get anywhere on land you only lease,with an much larger organisation who are stuck with very rigid standards to follow,where deviation required the process of the regulator,much time and perwork and whether in the end that’s worthwhile , the reason we don’t have a seperate platform at Matlock is due to years and years of those very issues, one thought I did have would be to have a platform on the but of buddleia outsdide the front of Sainsbury’s and use the run round loop,albeit as previously mentioned the point at the station end would need altering as would the interlocking on the frame and operational instructions, it would make better use of the hardly used run round loop but requires a lot of alterations and cash to effect .

On the flip side we were very lucky that NR and Railtrack and BR had ensured that the lever frame at Matlock station was provided with facing locks And the necessary interlocking to allow inwards running of Pr services else that would have been a greater cost bourne out to the railway to get altered, that was a long discussion in itself I recall.

Anyhow that’s a short reply I hope helps, I see the same problems from many other lines countrywide and a few I’ve been involved in at discussion level towards getting them connected ,offered ideas,ways forward,assistance as we are all in the same game for the same outcome to get our lines connected and pretty much all have the same or similar problems, maybe one day il write a book

 

I think this is what a lot of people would find the best solution all round...funds and stakeholder agreement pending.

 

Well, I imagine even PR staff must have /some/ form of paperwork, even to run T&T (what if they need to attend to a hot box when in the platform, for example?), so that argument doesn’t really stack up.
Anyway if it was anything to do with me (which it isn’t) I wouldn’t start by drawing up lists of problems, because that is the surest way to end up doing absolutely nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As we're considering solutions. Is there a possible alternate site for a PR station in Buxton considering the excursion platform's now being blocked off by the hospital and old people's home development?

 

Hey slow down, building an elevator to the moon is all well and good but let's try and break out of Rowsley South first!

The current Matlock arrangement is a credit to the people who toiled away for years to achieve it.

But we can't carry on 'forever' topping and tailing with all the incumbent costs and timetabling limitations it brings. There has to be some ambition and a strategic plan by PR to consider the alternatives and pursue a realistic option(s) with NR and other interested parties.

I also like the platform-in-front-of-Sainsburys suggestion. If there was a viable leadership team and a prioritised development plan for the railway I would think supporters are more likely to fund such a scheme. Currently it's beyond PRs financial capabilities though.

 

No, there isn't, railway access rights means they had a pretty strong case to get the hospital plans thrown out or dramatically changed, to the wider benefit of buxtoners in my view, but weak leadership and hardly any enthusiasm to contest it means it will go ahead, with PR having only a slither of land with nothing to do with it. If the management issues at PR had been sorted out a few years ago the. The fortunes of buxton would look rather different at this point.

 

Is the divisible staff still possible, i.e. t and t into Matlock with first train, leaving leading loco behind which then stays around as an attraction until it's time to go back to Riverside, it then backs down and takes out the next train into Matlock and so on? So three locos for two trains etc.

Dave

 

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that most PR crew don't have a NR PTS, and therefore can't get off a loco into the 6' at Matlock. I presume if something bad happened, either they would have to find someone with a PTS, or drag the rake out of the platform back to Peak Rail territory by fair means or foul before attending to it.

 

I'm a bit intrigued by this PTS thing. The NYMR issue their own PTS for crew working over the EVL. Although it is to group standards, it is endorsed as only valid on the Esk Valley line. Perhaps they can do this because they are a TOC, unlike Peak Rail. I don't know. However, there are several training organisations providing PTS courses and certification for contractors working on NR so I would have though it should be possible for PR to be registered in this way if they have a suitably qualified trainer, etc. and provide valid PTS's themselves. Has this not been looked into?

 

You may we we'll be right, so in theory there's nothing to stop the south end loco being dropped off at Riverside on PR territory on the northbound journey - adds more time of course.
Dave

 

Now I know all these questions have been answered before on the other forums,so here's a quick recap

Divisible staff is already in place should we decide to run only one engine,it was agreed and is wrote into place but you have to man riverside

There is instructions in place to cover emergencies etcetera whilst trains are in the section riverside to matlock station ,including staff needing access etc.

If you had an emergency on the train,would you really want it pulled back to riverside,depends on emergency,but you'd likely not want to move it as that could cause more,problems than solutions.

On the interesting quote of "don't write a list of problems first", have to disagree on this for two valid reasons

1 if you don't spot the what ifs before they occur then you can't put in place the solutions when they do occur, that can be costly,dangerous and not very professional,titanic moment anyone !
2 that's part of your risk assessments for all works,plus degraded methods of working that forms the basis of nearly all national and heritage railway operational paperwork in today's world, if you don't do them guaranteed NR will and will come asking what yours are if you don't have any, or HSE or ORR,RAIB

 

And this, I’m afraid, summarises exactly why Peak Rail will never get anywhere. Clearly having a vision and a determination to achieve it is less important to those involved than working out all of the reasons not to even bother trying. Yes, of course you need to carry out risk assessments and work in a professional manner; I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. What I’m more interested in is, where’s the strategic vision of what you are actually trying to do?

(I did read the PRAG document, by the way, and found it somewhat underwhelming. I could write a long critique of it but feel that there is enough negativity around PR already, so I’ll just leave it at that.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There are two threads on NP about Peak Rail.
Those not familiar with the line could be excused from thinking that it is two different railways being discussed.

 

We could. Though actually, reading between the lines, it is obvious that it is one railway. With no disrespect to what is posted on the other thread, it conveys the impression of a minor organisation, where everything is small scale, and tactical. This thread just draws that out, and brings some of the politics into play.

 

The loop at Riverside completley screws up that area with the need for those points which are too short in radius for passenger trains - having no check rail through the switch curve. A far better idea would be to plain line, realign and transition the track preferably on to the downside formation on the river bridge well away from the centre line, ease all the ridiculously tight curves, plain line it and protect the extension to NR with a "Stop & Obtain Staff before Proceeding" board. The Riverside platform could be moved across to the new formation which would allow a modest amount of room for car parking. All trains would run round at Darley Dale which is very close to Matlock anyway and be topped and tailed from there using Staff & Ticket or Divisible Train Staff which is much the same thing. This would mean that when the assisting driver had the staff the train could maintain a respectable 25mph all the way from Matlock to Darley Dale. A hut or shelter would of course be provided on Riverside platform for the signalman when trains could not run into Matlock Station due to mainline trains running round there which doesn't appear to be very often.

 

Do any trains particularly run round at Matlock these days? The service was worked by 156's and 158's last I remember...

 

If you only have a 4 mile ride, would you want to do 25mph?

I think it needs thinking about as a performance. Lots of whistle blowing, flag waving and tooting. Shouting of “right away driver” etc. Followed by a journey at a credible speed with an intermediate stop and a signalman waving etc etc. All staff in uniform and smiling. An end with a cheery “all change” and a theatrical run around or watering and opportunities to pose by the loco.

Then on to visit the sheds, turntable, narrow gauge etc as set out in the leaflet.

Yeah well.

What the PRAG paper shows is the cost of the basics to stand still - reworked platforming at Matlock and an acceptance of Rowsley South as a terminus and developing buildings accordingly.

Against those costs, the theatrical magic is cheap.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It is very tight over the bridge into riverside, could it have been put on a better alignment in first place.
Would running round at darley dale be abit of a faff, since its loop is split between 2 boxes and long aswell. Could the loop be split with crossover half way. And could you swap the boxes at darley dale and matlock, so matlock has small box and frame like at darley for when required to be open

 

Yes running round at Darley would be an operational faff that doesn't significantly improve on the current situation (which arguably isn't really a faff, it's just a very expensive and restrictive method of operating).

Riverside station's position was dictated by land circumstances (remember, it predated the Quarry redevelopment). It has served a purpose but we really ought to have been forging ahead with a better long term solution for Matlock in recent years and raising the necessary funds.

Picking up on Crantock's post, yes I agree on a short line its all about a theatrical performance and doing what you do really really well. Which is why I think PRAG has some interesting and well founded proposals, they might be 'underwhelming' to some but we desperately need to improve the viability and attractiveness of the current line before anything else. Using my own 4 and 10 year old children as examples, they aren't begging me to take them to PR for a day out...

 

There is no getting away from the fact that a run from Rowsley South is incredibly slow, boring and tedious and is a very poor representation of the former Midland Main Line. That is why this railway will never compete with the Severn Valleys, Bluebells or GCRs. Sorry.