UKH

The proposal to reopen the railway down Chee Dale and Water-cum-Jolly has been rejected. The following statement was made by those conducting the feasibility study -

Stage 1 Feasibility Study into the reopening of the Buxton to Matlock railway has found that reopening by 2011 would not be financially sound, though in the longer term there may be more demand. There was no evidence os significant modal shift (people changing the way they got around) and net environmental gain. The consultants recommended the existing corridor should be safe-guarded for 20 years but that any further development work be limited.

Derbyshire County Council will give its formal reaction to the recommendation later in the summer.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust will be reviewing current access arrangments, for access to crags in Chee Dale, with the BMC next week.
If there are any points you wish to raise about these access arrangements then please do so via this thread.

UKCLIMBING News - http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to UKC News:

This is good news, its just worrying that it lost out due to economic arguments rather than the fact that this is a national park and shouldn't be developed anyway.


What does this mean? Do they have specific concerns or do they do this sort of review regularly anyway?

In reply to Tyler:


Reopening a railway is hardly developement, infact it's restoring something which was there before national park status was granted. It's hardly going to make much of an impact on the landscape, as all the earthworks are already there.

In reply to Allan Thomson:

Of course it is development. It would restrict access to areas of a National Park, it would bring added noise to areas of a National Park and it sets a precident that National Park status is menaingless in the face of economic arguments. Besides the people most likely to benfit from such a scheme would be the quarry owners at the end of the Dale.

In reply to Tyler:
Wouldn't taking traffic off the roads be an advantage? If the railway was already there, would you be demanding its closure as it'd restrict access to parts of the national park?

In reply to Allan Thomson:

Yes, but it seems that the study has concluded that it wouldn't do this.

In reply to Allan Thomson:

But its not already there is it, just some earthworks and old tunnels...

As for taking traffic off the roads then yes, of course it would be an advantage, the A6 and other roads in the area can be a nightmare, and are overburdened at times. However, I would rather that than the disruption of one of the most beautiful areas in the peak, that is home to such a diverse spread of wildlife and users.

In reply to UKC News:

Not really an access issue, but I guess related to the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust so I'll raise it here. What is the situation with cleaning up some of Chee Tor, replacing some of the older manky loweroffs, insitu gear etc?

In reply to Allan Thomson:
Jeez mate, the old railway track's, a nice and popular trail now, the area's beautiful and quiet, and theres great limestone climbing alongside. Running trains through it would be really bad karma man.

In reply to ChrisC:
Yes, as you've failed to that is realise the main part of the railway lines infrastructure, and that which creates the greatest impact upon the landscape. Simply laying track along it, does not impact that much upon the environment. Indeed the landscape as you see it now, would not exist without human development, it would be totally different.


>However, I would rather that than the disruption of one of the most beautiful areas in the peak, that is home to such a diverse spread of wildlife

Perhaps you could also grass over all the roads then? Get people to walk instead of using cars? Make sure no aircraft fly overhead. Indeed one could argue that infact the wildlife which lives upon the railway line would actually be subject to less disruption, as it would remove walker with dogs from the railway line, who are can responsible for the destruction of animals habitats. Also don't climbers pose a risk to birds nests. Everything creates disruption to wildlife. If you care that much about damage and disruption to the natural environment, then why go there in the first place?

One would assume that unless reintrodued, obviously the impact of the railway in the first place upon the wildlife was not that great.

In reply to Allan Thomson:
the impact of reopening the railway on climbing doesn't bear thinking about...

In reply to Anonymous: That climbing wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for the railway? Or do you think cuttings are a natural feature?

In reply to Allan Thomson:

are you calling Plum Butress a cutting??

Muppet.......

In reply to Tyler:

There is a meeting next week with the BMC to discuss various Chee Dale issues. Uppermost amongst these is the various access routes to the different buttresses. I suspect that replacement of old fixed gear may crop up.

I don't get the impression that DWT are wanting to restrict access to anywhere, but they want to establish certain access routes as the norm. Problem areas seem to be Long Wall, where the steep slope is eroding, and the river eroded the narrow path under Pink Wall, making this lower approach very awkward. However ploughing across from Runyons Corner or Two Tier isn't a very inviting prospect. Also, there is no agreed route to approach the Lifts although they seem happy with the top-down approach curently used by most. Also, there is a sensitive scree slope underneath Plum Buttress which is causing a few minor problems.

Alan

In reply to Simon:

LOL!- he's obviously not been !

In reply to Allan Thomson:


Which particular "cuttings" have you climbed on in Cheedale? Have you ever even been to Cheedale?

Your arguments about environmental impact are bollocks, based, as they are, solely on visiual intrusion. a few metal rails along existing path would be minimal but it doesn't tkae account of:

- Noise of trains passing through
- Restricted access (you won't know this but the exisitng track is now part of the main path through Cheedale).
- How do you think the rails are going to get there? A couple of blokes slinging them over their shoulder and walking down? You say all the earthworks are there already, are you sure all the bridges and tunnels are still strong enough to cope? At a minimum it will be years of engineering activity in the dale to put this through.
- Banning of climbing on some crags.

If you have ever tried to use a rural rail service for getting arouund you will know that it is no substitute for a car, the people most likely to use it are the quarries. True this might take some lorries off the road but could also be used to justify expanding the quarry.

Those arguments aside, have you thought whether or not development in National Parks is desirable? Do you think National Parks are a good thing? If so why?

Why are you in favour of this railway being reused?

Hi all,

I’ve just had a chat with Henry Folkard and the importance of this report shouldn’t be underestimated. The feasibility study concentrates in large part on the economic aspects of the proposal and finds that there is no evidence that it constitutes a viable suggestion at present. There apparent disregard for the environmental consequences is a result of having reached the conclusion that it wasn’t financially viable and effectively calling a halt to the process. They found no evidence that people would change their mode of transport from car to train.

To answer some specific points:

Allan – Far from the earthworks being in existence already, an enormous amount of work would have been necessary to bring the Dale up to current railway standards. The impact on a SSSI can only be guessed at but would have been considerable. There’s little evidence that a new railway would have improved people’s access to the NP. As Tyler rightly suggests, the major beneficiaries would have been the quarry owners.

ChrisC – Excellent work improving lower-offs has already been carried out with the permission of Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT). If you’ve any further proposals, let’s hear them.

In conclusion, and this is the really good bit, this process has proved invaluable to the BMC in terms of the profile we now enjoy amongst a number of important agencies such as English Nature and the DWT. This really is the big rejoinder to Allan’s points. We have fought side by side with the environmental bodies to question the validity of this proposal and they realise that, more often than not, climbers and environmentalists have the same agenda. Engagement is obviously preferable to conflict and Henry Folkard and the rest of the BMC access team should be congratulated for their efforts.


PS. The meeting between DWT and the BMC next week is important also. If you have any specific points you’d like to raise, either go to the meeting at the Grouse tomorrow night or post here. Make your opinions known one way or the other.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

I'm guessing that any path building on that side of the river or stepping stones over the river would be opposed by Wildlife Trust?

In reply to Tyler:

Not necessarily. Stepping stones over the river at that point wouldn't be practical since it is very deep there. The Two Tier stones could well be improved though since they are keen on water-based wildlife as well (except for the fish) and don't like people wading the river at random points. The path below Pink Wall was always dodgy but now it is really dodgy and there is little chance that it can be rebuilt without some kind of wooden walkway (expensive) although you can balance your way around it.

Having said that, they are keener that when people access a crag, they do so via the same route rather than make 5 different paths. This is the main purpose of next week's meeting I think.

Alan

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

If they don't mind proper stepping stones at the Two Tier-Max Buttress crossing then this might be the best idea. You could then access Long Wall along the bottom of Two Tier. It would make the walk in longer but maybe a bit more pleasant. Some path work would have to be done between TT and LW.

In reply to Tyler:

Just to straighten out this point - in their closing summary, the Council stated that this project was not financial viable because of the lack of interest, and thus potential revenue, from quarry owners who have declared no interest in using this line to clear stone from their sites.

Bunny McCullough
Access Rep
Eastern Moors