Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by railway, Jan 1, 2011.
1.1 km and 7 new stations - yikes, that's one station per 150 metres...?
Its 1.1km section of double track, not its total length!!!!!
I assume its the intact but disused ex colliery line from Little Eaton to near Ripley. Not sure how the propose to link to the Midland Railway because that is the other side of Ripley, and theres been some serious development done in various sections of the lifted part. I recon it would cost many millions to reinstate north of Denby, and isn't that already main line connected anyway???
Aah - that make more sense!
Looks ok from the air apart from the A38 at Hammersmith, would need a steep curve or something to meet with the MRC. Also looks like cuttings have been filled in.
If it was impossible then it wouldn't have got to that stage of looking at it.
That looks a big project. Seven or eight miles of track ? or do I misunderstand the routing
Thankyou for taking an interest in this massive but exciting project.
I am one of the two project leaders, working closely with the CES Group Partnership Senior Partner Desmond McKinley as Project Consultant.
We have walked the entire legth of the proposed line, right from the mainline junction at Little Eaton (with permission from Network Rail and in posession of a full NR PTS), along the existing track to Denby, then along the Ripley Greenway to Hammersmith. While there will be a lot of earthworks required along the current Greenway, it is not impossible and is a very feasible proposal. Should anyone have any questions regarding this project, there are a number of ways to go about it. Either send me a PM on here, post in this thread and wait until I get back to you, email our consultant (email address can be found on http://www.cesgrouppartnership.co.u...project---little-eaton-to-ripley-railway-line) or post to our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Amber-Valley-Regeneration-Project/128295223890790 .
While every effort will be made to reply to as many queries as possible, due to the sheer volume of messages being recieved, it will not be possible to respond to every single one.
Amber Valley Regeneration Project
While i dont wish to burst anyone's bubble, on first impressions this does appear to be more wishful thinking from local railway enthusiasts than a well thought out plan likely to impress investors. While i can understand the wish to see passenger services back on a nearby disused railway, unfortunately the amount of detail, on the website at least, regarding the 'regeneration' that justifies it is in stark contrast to that of the proposed railway - appearing to put the cart in front of the horse is unlikely to create much confidence, and neither is the below quote...
*Local investors are being sought for this project to fund the initial purchase of the line and to carry out preparation work ahead of the full funding case being presented"
If you dont have the funding to determine if there's even a financial case for what you have planned, let alone control of the trackbed or even a professional looking website, talk of putting it out to tender with construction beginning by next year seems very premature and perhaps just a little naïve considering the amount of work it seems left to do. I wish you luck, but SELRAP and the Portishead branch surely have a far better chance of success yet have made little if any progress.
For the rail project, we currently have support from the likes of the Department for Transport, The Rt. Hon. Philip Hammond (Secretary of State for Transport), Derbyshire County Council, Amber Valley Borough Council, Network Rail and East Midlands Trains are taking a great interest, along with many local investors. In the words of DCC and AVBC, Ripley has required a rail connection for the last decade or so and, as it is one of the largest towns in the area currently without a rail connection, the roads simply cannot and will not be able to cope with the expansion of the area.
This is in no way "wishful thinking from local rail enthusiasts," this is a very serious business proposal and will create over 100 jobs and reintroduce popular tourism into the local area (Amber Valley TIC closed in 2009) and is not just about the railway.
Amber Valley Regeneration Project
Daniel: With the utmost respect, Ripley is very adjacent to the A38 dual-carriageway into Derby, which whilst I agree is a busy road, is nevertheless a good road, with access to the City Centre, Park and Ride etc.
Do you really think there is a case for a rail link via the old Denby branch, and if this is a commuter/congestion project, what on earth do you need a connection to the
Midland Railway Centre for, particularly as that connection would be the most expensive part of the project? As far as I can see the MRC tracks are not going to be of any relevence in terms of regular services and extra passengers?
Obviously they support a plan to reopen a disued railway line and regenerate an area, but presumably that support is only 'in principle' until you've managed to employ someone like Arup to look into how realistic the business case is so they can examine it in detail, look at the costings, timescales etc. Have you made any progress on that?
As I've commented elsewhere, I'm not sure why the proposed infrastructure provision is so extensive for just an hourly passenger service plus (maybe) a handful of other workings. Five or six CCTV crossings and associated full signalling, two passing loops and further signalling and a triangular junction at Little Eaton - why is any of that necessary to run an hourly passenger service? I'm sure it'd be 'nice to have' to allow, say, an intensive service to operate on the odd weekend, but I'm certain that's not going to generate anywhere near enough revenue to justify the huge additional investment (occasional through traffic from the north - an ambitious thought freight-wise unless we're talking trainloads - can surely run-round at Derby or run via Trent, and then run down the branch whilst the hourly unit is between Little Eaton and Derby and return). If I was a potential investor, I'd certainly be put off by the thought of investing in infrastructure that wasn't necessary!
Is the consultant's knowledge of railway operations and signalling sufficiently thorough to allow the proposal to be taken seriously? Unfortunately, given the outline proposal put forward thus far, it appears not! That's unfortunate, because I'm sure there's at least a chance of success if the project's approached in a more sensible and realistic manner...
Any news on this project? It all seems to have gone a bit quiet opcorn:
Interestingly in one of the Mags MRT have distanced themselves from the project
Read this,from local newspaper dated 10-2-11
This is why it's all gone quiet about this 'project'!
Separate names with a comma.