Proposed new passenger line will link in with Midland Railway Centre

[Railway]

http://rail-news.com/2011/01/01/proposal-for-new-derbyshire-passenger-line/

 

[Wyvern]

It would certainly be nice but sounds highly fanciful to me and full of problems.

Not least the eight or so level crossings. And where are the passengers coming from for the seven stations? Although there is existing single track for most of the way it only connects to the up goods into Derby. And a new signal box?

I could imagine it being carried by a volunteer group, like the Ecclesbourne Valley line, but the article writes about tenders being sought from professional civil engineering companies and we know how much they charge,

 

[Tomnick]

Talk of two passing loops, a double track section, five or six CCTV crossings (two different pages on their temporary website give two different figures, and Quail shows at least seven crossings on the line in any case!) and comprehensive signalling (and signalbox) seems rather grand for, initially at least, a proposed hourly service.

I don't know how the branch is currently signalled (presumably the interlocking still exists), but the most basic form of One Train Working would happily allow a train to pootle up there from Derby every hour. Providing something akin to the Matlock branch, with full token working remote from the controlling signalbox, would allow trains to be 'shut inside' at the Denby end and any intermediate sidings. In both cases, I'm sure that it would be possible to operate the branch fully from Derby PSB (as, for the most part, little more would be required than signalling the train onto the branch, releasing the token to the Driver, waiting for the token to be restored and signalling it off the branch!).

Level crossings - seven or eight CCTV crossings is an awfully large number both for installation, maintenance and supervision - and may exceed the number that can be operated by one Signalman under some agreement that exists? For a low-speed hourly service, crossing mainly relatively quiet roads, locally monitored crossings (ABCL or similar) should be sufficient. If that's not suitable for any of the crossings (the A609?), then some sort of trainman-operated crossing with barriers wouldn't put too much into the timings.

The lack of a connection from the main lines at Little Eaton Jn is something that the website fails to mention - I'm sure that the interlocking remains for these connections (indeed, I'm told that the signal on the Down Main in rear of Little Eaton Jn still carries the junction indicator, albeit bagged over), but there's still a fair bit of work and cost involved in installing two crossovers on a busy main line!

So yes, it does unfortunately appear to me as though the group behind the efforts (who have a strangely varied portfolio!) don't understand the cost of the works that they propose, and I do wonder how they hope to attract funding for a proposal that is full of features unnecessary for the service that it will initially deliver. The increasingly successful Ecclesbourne Valley Railway started with a similar setup, and it's taken many, many years for them to get to the point of having a service connecting with the main line, and I suspect it'll be a little while yet before there's any movement on through running south from Duffield.

 

[nferguso]

So yes, it does unfortunately appear to me as though the group behind the efforts (who have a strangely varied portfolio!) don't understand the cost of the works that they propose, and I do wonder how they hope to attract funding for a proposal that is full of features unnecessary for the service that it will initially deliver. The increasingly successful Ecclesbourne Valley Railway started with a similar setup, and it's taken many, many years for them to get to the point of having a service connecting with the main line, and I suspect it'll be a little while yet before there's any movement on through running south from Duffield.

I won’t comment on the group’s scheme because I remember the Forces of Reaction at work when we started work on the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway to Wirksworth. However, regarding infrastructure, the following are worth noting:

We did have two AOCL crossings (open, lights, locally-monitored: i.e. the driver checked them) and chose to replace them with gates for two reasons: first to reduce maintenance costs and second because one crossing in particular was on a road where the traffic conditions were no longer appropriate for the type of crossing. On the day we took the Inspector to the crossing to explain why gates would be more appropriate, just as our train came to a stand, a child whizzed over the crossing on a bicycle, totally oblivious to our presence. We won that argument quite easily!

Regarding the main line connection at Duffield; the cost of retaining it (a facing junction on a 110mph main line) was eye-watering and completely beyond our means. I would speculate that reinstating it would cost almost as much as we have spent restoring the line over the past decade, even though the interlocking is still in place.

Instead, we are fortunate to have our own platform at Duffield that will provide an easy connection with the Nottingham-Matlock service that is provided by East Midlands Trains, who are an extremely well-organised and progressively-minded TOC. Hopefully, you will see evidence of this in the coming weeks as we provide more information concerning our reopening in April.

Neil

 

[Tomnick]

Neil,

Your point re. AOCL crossings makes perfect sense; my own experiences with the AOCL on the North Norfolk Rly tell me that they're abused too often for comfort. ABCLs would go some way to overcoming problems of abuse though, but admittedly wouldn't be sufficient in some locations. Hand-worked gates (that need to be manned to avoid substantial and probably unacceptable delay to trains) or a set of full barriers operated by the Driver on approach (raising automatically following the passage of the train) would all but eliminate that problem; my point was that the unnecessary cost of installing a CCTV crossing and all the associated signalling and data links back to the signalbox, followed by the ongoing cost of maintenance and supervision, could be avoided by the use of a cheaper alternative - both ABCLs and traincrew-operated barriers would be significantly cheaper.

I don't know exactly what criticism was levelled at your group when you started at Wirksworth - any significant proposal is bound to attract doubt and criticism, often uninformed - but it seems to me that you've set about a substantial project in a sensible manner, within a practical timescale and to an achieveable budget. The Denby proposal seems in complete contrast to this, promising completion of a huge undertaking within just a couple of years - a timescale achieveable only with significant external investment which, given the extravagance that is apparant in the proposal, is unlikely to be forthcoming. I do wonder how much thought has been given to even an approximate cost - the reference to "CCTV automatic ... crossings", for example, is a nonsense.

In response to your last paragraph, I must confess that I've never visited Wirksworth despite living in Derby. Hopefully I'll put that right this year - I look forward to making use of the new connection out of the Matlock train at Duffield!

Tom

 

[Wyvern]

Do we have a link for their website?

 

[Tomnick]

This page gives some details of the proposal.

 

[Wyvern]

Triangular junction at Little Eaton.hock:

 

[Tomnick]

Exactly - the group are proposing works far exceeding the requirements to operate the proposed service, even allowing for occasional railtours and freight workings (which can surely run round at Derby if necessary, or run via Toton from the North, and then traverse the whole of the branch between passenger services, being shut inside at Denby).

 

[Wyvern]

£45 million !

If there's that much money flying around, how about my pet scheme to put a north facing curve at Stenson Junction which would facilitate diversion off the MML through Spondon.

Reopeniing Castle Doniington would serve the airport (including business from the Royal Mail and Rolls Royce both close to the railway at Derby)

New stations could serve Sinfin and the new estates at Heatherton Village (especially) and Boulton Moor, reducing road congestion into Derby also, possibly, Nottingham via the A453

 

[Tomnick]

Not sure where the figure of £45m is mentioned, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to me! There's plenty of potential improvements crying out for that sort of money, and this proposal would stand more chance if it demanded rather less of it.

As an aside, it seems that reopening the former route from Melbourne Jn (Peartree) to Chellaston Jn would be an adequate alternative to a north-facing curve at Stenson Jn itself?

 

[Wyvern]

I thought of that, and I think most of the track bed is still clear. There's been an immense amount of housing put in all round that south side of Derby.

There are three problems 1) Rolls Royce might not be happy with it going through their site, 2) it would entail a level crossing over Wilmore Road 3)The A50 runs across before the line would reach what was Chellaston Junction.

I have suggested to the City planners (I didn't get an answer) that the trackbed be kept clear from the Chellaston itself to Merrill Way for a possible tram route which could continue to the city along Victory Road. Unfortunately the council still seems stuck in the 'sixties, building car parks and ring roads. The city's roads just aren't congested enough.

Edit: I've just thought. It would pass close to the oroginal Derby tram depot.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not sure where the figure of £45m is mentioned,

Their Facebook page

Ripley and Heanor News

an AMBITIOUS £45 million plan to reopen the rail line to Ripley and build a station in the town has been unveiled.

Railway Passenger services could begin running between Ripley and Little Eaton for the first time since 1930 if the CES Group Partnership scheme gets its bid for funding from the EU approved.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks for the links; missed that snippet. I didn't really mean to say that £45m was not unreasonable in my previous post - it is unreasonable for what it will deliver (though that seems to refer to the whole project through to Ripley rather than just phase one), but it's not unexpected given the proposed over-provision of infrastructure. I'm still not sure on what basis, and with what expertise, it has been costed - as I said earlier, reference to "CCTV automatic" level crossings suggests a lack of the latter!

I completely overlooked the A50/A514 junction that sits on the alignment of the Melbourne Jn - Chellaston Jn line - yes, that's more than likely an obstacle that would require diversion of the line onto a new alignment, unless there's an opportunity to tunnel beneath it. Either way, a north curve at Stenson suddenly looks more attractive... I think the other two issues would be relatively easily overcome though.

 

[PinzaC55]

It sounds like a joke to me. The only company I can think of which might be able to take on such a scheme is the American lot who are running the Weardale Railway.

 

[sprinterguy]

Returning to the original proposal detailed in the article from the OP (It took a little bit of Googling until I realised that the issues with the A50 were referring to the alternate proposal on the other side of Derby towards Castle Donington), if the intention is to connect into the Midland Railway Centre, then won’t their be problems with the A38 getting in the way of the essential link between the MRC and a reopened station in Ripley? It looks like it sits either on or exceedingly close to a short length of track bed. There’s one problem with any hope of this operating as a community rail line.

Also, I don’t reckon there’s a hope in hell of a preservation society gaining running rights into Derby station, even if they could afford to maintain a link to the network, so with no connecting national rail station at Little Eaton there’d be little regular passenger traffic to be gained. And looking at it another way, I don’t think EMT could be persuaded to operate the route, which would offer the only real way into connecting the communities along the route to the major destination; Derby.

 

[Tomnick]

Also, I don’t reckon there’s a hope in hell of a preservation society gaining running rights into Derby station, even if they could afford to maintain a link to the network, so with no connecting national rail station at Little Eaton there’d be little regular passenger traffic to be gained. And looking at it another way, I don’t think EMT could be persuaded to operate the route, which would offer the only real way into connecting the communities along the route to the major destination; Derby.

Agreed, I can only conclude that there's either an expectation that EMT will be willing to work the passenger service along the branch (subsidised by who and worked by what stock?), or a lack of understanding of the hoops to be jumped through before Network Rail would even be able to consider allowing an independent operator to bring its own stock with its own crews onto NR infrastructure. It's taken the NYMR (a well established operation, of course, with equally well established operating procedures) long enough to achieve that, and even then with various derogations owing to the low linespeed and infrequent service.

 

[sprinterguy]

Agreed, I can only conclude that there's either an expectation that EMT will be willing to work the passenger service along the branch (subsidised by who and worked by what stock?), or a lack of understanding of the hoops to be jumped through before Network Rail would even be able to consider allowing an independent operator to bring its own stock with its own crews onto NR infrastructure. It's taken the NYMR (a well established operation, of course, with equally well established operating procedures) long enough to achieve that, and even then with various derogations owing to the low linespeed and infrequent service.

Indeed. As you say, the NYMR agreement for working a section of the Whitby branch, which even then took many years to come to fruition, is a completely different kettle of fish to introducing preserved operations over a couple of miles of the 110mph Midland Main Line. The obstacles to overcome in this case would surely be monstrous.

 

[PinzaC55]

I did a search for "Amber Valley Regeneration Project" and came up with this
http://www.cesgrouppartnership.co.u...project---little-eaton-to-ripley-railway-line
It seems to be totally serious :roll:

 

[mossend]

I did a search for "Amber Valley Regeneration Project" and came up with this
http://www.cesgrouppartnership.co.u...project---little-eaton-to-ripley-railway-line
It seems to be totally serious :roll:

Yes. I like the look of it. However there are some seemingly well reasoned posts from a few experienced people pointing out many pit-falls. Mr Ferguson I know from the Ecclesborne Valley Railway.

I'm game for any extension of the rail network. But it is going to be a really tough slog. Look at the Wensleydale? They have struggled for years. Still haven't connected with Northallerton, nor have they gone beyond Redmire. It was originally going to be a community railway. Acts more like a Preserved Railway.

 

[caliwag]

Local newdpaper opinion...

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/l...e-better/article-3117860-detail/article.html?

 

[Spagnoletti]

I'd be suspicious of any business that claims to be applying for grant money for a project of this magnitude yet publishes no contact information or portfolio of previous projects for themselves, and uses a website that is hosted on a google freebie static page effort.

 

[Multiple Unit]

Im assuming the link will be at the Hammersmith End of the line though I would have thoght it would be cheaper and easir to put in a Link to the Main Line at the Pye Brige end of the line or should i have said put back the link / line either way it woyuld make it alot easier to get to the MRB rather than use the Bus.

 

[CallySleeperKid]

However many issues there are with this project, I'd love to think that one day it will happen. The Derbyshire Wayfarer ticket will be a real gem then!

 

[Wyvern]

Im assuming the link will be at the Hammersmith End of the line though I would have thoght it would be cheaper and easir to put in a Link to the Main Line at the Pye Brige end of the line or should i have said put back the link / line either way it woyuld make it alot easier to get to the MRB rather than use the Bus.

The link to the MRC is an add-on to the main scheme which to restore the line between Ripley and Little Eaton and thence to Derby as a commuter route.

The MRC is already connected to the the main (Erewash Valley) line. All that would be needed would be to uprate it to passenger standard (as at Matlock for Peak Rail) but to what purpose?

 

[denbyist]

www.ripleyandheanornews.co.uk/news/local/rail_plan_boss_s_identity_revealed_1_3066148
As published on 10-2-11